THE  PRESIDENTS  CABINET 


STUDIES  IN  THE   ORIGIN,    FORMATION  AND 
STRUCTURE  OF  AN  AMERICAN  INSTITUTION 


BY 

HENRY  BARRETT  LEARNED 


NEW  HAVEN:  YALE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 
LONDON:    HENRY  FROWDE 
OXFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 
MCMXII 


COPYRIGHT,  1912 
BY 

YALE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 
First  Printed.  January.    1000  Copies. 


TO  THE  MEMORY  OF 
EDWARD  GAYLORD  BOURNE 

THE   REMEMBRANCE   OF  WHOSE    SCHOLARSHIP,   INSPIRING 

COUNSEL    AND    LOYAL    FRIENDSHIP    HAS    BEEN 

HELPFUL   IN   THE    PREPARATION   OF 

THESE   PAGES 


236387 


PEEFACE 

THE  following  Studies  are  designed  to  reveal  those 
''factors  in  the  history  of  the  President's  Cabinet 
which  explain  the  origin  and  formation  of  the  council 
as  well  as  the  establishment  of  the  structural  offices 
which  form  the  institution. •They  are  complete  in 
themselves.  Only  incidentally  are  they  concerned  with 
cabinet  practices  and  personnel.  The  study  of  cabinet 
practices  and  personnel  is  a  large  and  difficult  subject. 
At  another  time,  when  I  have  succeeded  in  compassing 
scattered  and  refractory  materials,  I  propose  to  set  it 
forth  in  accordance  with  the  plan  projected  in  the 
Introduction.  The  limited  task  has  yielded  results 
which  admit  now  of  the  presentation  of  a  book  which 
will  throw  light,  I  hope,  on  a  subject  concerning  which 
there  has  been  hitherto  no  satisfactory  record. 

I  have  felt  obliged  to  give  much  attention  to  political 
debates.  "Few  forms  of  literature  or  history  are  so 
dull,"  says  John  Morley,  "as  the  narrative  of  political 
debates.  With  a  few  exceptions,  a  political  speech 
like  the  manna  in  the  wilderness  loses  its  savour  on 
the  second  day. ' '  On  the  other  hand,  the  truths  of  my 
subject  were  not  to  be  extracted  at  many  points  from 
any  other  sources.  These  sources,  too,  afforded  fre- 
quent glimpses  of  men  of  marked  distinction,  and 
accordingly  helped  to  relieve  the  structural  aspects  of 
the  theme  by  supplying  warmth  and  life.  I  cannot 
resist  paying  tribute  in  this  connection  to  Charles 
Pinckney,  the  brilliant  statesman  from  South  Carolina, 


viii  PREFACE 


whose  work  in  the  Philadelphia  Convention  of  1787 
has  been  better  appreciated  of  late  years  than  ever 
before.  The  longer  I  studied  the  materials  which  have 
entered  into  my  third  chapter  on  the  "  Development 
of  the  Idea  of  a  President's  Council:  1787-1788, "  the 
stronger  became  my  interest  in  Pinckney.  If  I  have- 
succeeded  in  setting  in  truer  perspective  such  a  well- 
known  figure  as  Robert  J.  Walker  of  Mississippi ;  and 
if  I  have  drawn  forth  into  the  light  from  their  dim 
recesses  two  such  comparatively  unknown  men  as 
Judge  Augustus  B.  Woodward  of  Virginia  and 
Charles  B.  Calvert  of  Maryland,  I  shall  have  done 
only  what  the  truth  of  history  seemed  to  warrant. 

Portions  of  the  matter  in  several  of  these  Studies 
have  been  printed  already  in  such  periodicals  as  the 
American  Historical  Review  (April,  1905,  and  July, 
1911),  the  Yale  Review  (August,  1906,  and  October, 
1911),  the  American  Political  Science  Review  (August, 
1909),  and  the  Political  Science  Quarterly  (September, 
1909).  While  I  have  drawn  freely  upon  such  printed 
matter,  the  book  is  the  product  of  a  renewed  effort  to 
reconsider,  to  elaborate,  and  to  extend  to  the  point  of 
great  fullness  a  collection  of  notes  on  the  basis  of 
which  it  has  been  written. 

To  many  persons  I  am  under  obligations  for  encour- 
agement or  assistance  at  different  stages  of  the  work. 
The  task  was  originally  suggested  by  Professor  A.  B. 
Hart.  It  was  begun  under  the  guidance  of  Professors 
Hart  and  Edward  Channing,  my  teachers  at  Harvard 
University.  It  developed  in  interest  and  gained  pro- 
portion as  a  result  of  many  conversations  on  the  sub- 


PREFACE  ix 


ject  of  method  with  my  friend,  the  late  Professor  E.  G. 
Bourne.  His  discerning  criticism  first  aroused  me  to 
the  possibilities  of  the  theme,  notwithstanding  his 
characteristically  frank  admission  that  he  cared  little 
about  the  sort  of  task  in  which  I  had  become  involved. 
On  many  points  of  law  I  have  had  the  helpful  counsel 
of  Governor  S.  E.  Baldwin  of  New  Haven,  Connect- 
icut ;  Professor  W.  R.  Vance  of  the  Yale  Law  School ; 
Mr.  Middleton  Beaman,  until  recently  Librarian  of  the 
Law  Library  of  Congress  and  the  Supreme  Court; 
and  Mr.  Henry  E.  Colton,  Special  Assistant  to  the 
Attorney-General.  Professor  J.  Franklin  Jameson, 
Director  of  the  Department  of  Historical  Research  of 
the  Carnegie  Institution  of  Washington,  was  kind 
enough  to  read  the  first  rough  draft  of  the  manu- 
script ;  he  made  several  suggestions  by  means  of  which 
I  was  enabled  to  improve  the  book.  Professor  William 
A.  Dunning  of  Columbia  University  aided  me  in  simi- 
lar fashion  by  reading  several  of  the  early  chapters. 
Others  to  whom  I  am  grateful  for  encouragement  are : 
President  Lowell  of  Harvard  University,  ex-Secretary 
of  War  Jacob  M.  Dickinson,  Hon.  James  R.  Mann  of 
Chicago,  Illinois,  Professors  Franklin  B.  Dexter  and 
Charles  M.  Andrews  of  Yale  University,  Mr.  Charles 
H.  Adams  of  the  Hartford  Courant,  Mr.  George  L.  Fox 
of  New  Haven,  and  Mr.  Robert  Brent  Mosher,  for- 
merly Chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Appointments  in  the 
State  Department  at  Washington  and  now  Consul  at 
Plauen  in  Saxony.  For  her  painstaking  care  in  exam- 
ining under  my  direction  certain  historic  materials 
which  have  entered  into  the  body  of  the  book  I  am 


PREFACE 


indebted  to  the  late  Miss  E.  G.  Fowler  of  Hartford, 
Connecticut.  To  no  one,  however,  do  I  acknowledge 
with  greater  readiness  my  gratitude  for  inspiration 
and  assistance  than  to  my  friend,  Professor  Max 
Farrand  of  Yale  University.  He  has  spared  much 
time  in  allowing  me  to  discuss  with  him  many  prob- 
lems all  along  the  way. 

The  book  can  hardly  be  free  from  errors  of  fact  and 
judgment.  For  these  errors  I  am  alone  responsible. 
The  publishers  have  taken  the  utmost  care  to  have  the 
volume  meet  my  wishes  in  every  respect.  Mr.  E. 
Byrne  Hackett  in  particular  has  given  time  and 
thought  to  the  selection  of  type  and  to  oversight  of  all 
the  mechanical  details. 

H.  B.  L. 

New  Haven,  Connecticut, 
October  15, 1911. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

INTRODUCTION         ......         1 

I.     HISTORIC  SIGNIFICANCE  OF   THE   TERM   "CABI- 
NET" IN  ENGLAND          ....         9 
Notes:  1.  Bibliographical       .          .          .      -    .       44 
2.  From  Macaulay  to  Bagehot:   1848- 

1865 45 

*  II.     THE  BASIS  OF  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET:  1775- 

1789 47 

Note :  History  of  Administration :  1775-1789   .       64 

MIL    DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  IDEA  OF  A  PRESIDENT'S 

COUNCIL:  1787-1788         ....       66 
Note:  The    Phrase    "Privy   Council"    in    the 

Colonies 95- 

IV.     THE  PRINCIPAL  OFFICES  IN  1789        ...       97 
Note :  Alleged  Authorship  of  the  Act  establish- 
ing the  Treasury  Department  in  1789     109 

V.     THE  CREATION  OF  THE  CABINET:  1789-1793       .     110 
Notes:  1.  Robert    Morris    and    the    Treasury 

Portfolio 131 

2.  Jefferson's   Appointment   as    Secre- 

tary of  State       .         .         .          .132 

3.  Colonial  Practices  .          .          .133 

^VI.     THE  TERM  "  CABINET  "  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  .     135 

VII.     THE  ATTORNEY-GENERALSHIP   ....     159 
Note :  The  Attorney-General  and  Private  Prac- 
tice since  1854          .          .         .          .196 

VIII.     ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE 

NAVY 199 

Note:  Table  of  Votes  in  the  House  on  April 

25,  1798 219 


xii  CONTENTS 


CHAPTEE  PAGE 

IX.     THE  POSTMASTER-GENERAL       ....     220 

X.     ESTABLISHMENT  OP  THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE 

INTERIOR 253 

Notes:  1.  Judge  Augustus  B.  Woodward   (c. 

1775-1827)  .         .         .         .288 

2.  Act  to  establish  a  "Home  Depart- 

ment" in  1849    .          .          .          .289 

3.  Growth   of    the    National    Domain: 

1781-1853 290 

XI.     ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRI- 
CULTURE        ......     292 

Notes:  1.  Appropriations      for     Agriculture: 

1850-1865;  1900-1912  .         .         .340 

2.  Last  Meeting  of  the  United  States 

Agricultural  Society  in  1881          .     341 

3.  The     Publications    of    the    United 

States  Agricultural  Society          .     343 

XII.     ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  COM- 
MERCE AND  LABOR 346 

XIII.     CONCLUSIONS 368 

APPENDIX:     .......     395 

A.  Table  of  Salaries  of  President,  Vice-Presi- 

dent,  and  Principal  Officers :  1789-1909  .     396 

B.  Table  to  indicate  the  States  of  the  Union 

from  which  the  Principal  Officers  have 
been  selected :  1789-1909       .          .          .399 

C.  The    Smithsonian  ,  Institution    and    the 

Cabinet 402 

D.  List  of  Authorities        ....     404 

INDEX    .  429 


THE  PRESIDENTS  CABINET 


INTRODUCTION 

f  TV  TO  man  can  rule  a  people  aloneTj  However  primi- 
~~  ±\  five  a  government  may  be,  the  chief,  called  by 
whatever  name,  is  bound  to  rely  for  his  successful 
direction  of  it  on  aid  outside  himself.  Frpm_  jthe 
distant  beginnings  of  historic  polity,  whether  these 
beginnings  are  studied  in  the  Homeric  poems,  in  the 
traditions  that  lay  behind  the  Roman  Commonwealth 
and  the  succeeding  Empire  or  in  the  slender  records 
of  the  German  tribes — so  far  at  least  as  these  tribes 
had  a  common  permanent  head — kings  had  their 
groups  or  councils  of  intimate_adyjsers.  When  Moses 
complained  that  he  was  not  able  to  "bear  this  people 
alone,  because  it  was  too  heavy  for  him, ' '  the  Lord  had 
him  gather  seventy  men  of  the  elders  of  Israel  and 
"bring  them  into  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation" 
to  stand  there  and  bear  with  him  the  burden  of  the 
people. 

Essential  factors  of  kingly  influence  and  power 
these  councils  were  in  any  system  of  government. 
The  simplest  form  of  council  was  one  composed  of 
assistants  selected  by  the  chief  from  among  his  imme- 
diate friends  and  following,  such  as  his  household 
servants  and  officers.  These  intimate  assistants  were 
at  their  leader's  beck  and  call.  Helping  him  to  formu- 
late plans  and  then  to  carry  them  out,  they  sustained 
his  sway.  Some  such  body  characteristic  of  force  and 
efficiency  stood  at  the  very  beginnings  of  successful 


THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 


government.  But  it  marked  not  only  primitive  organi- 
zation, for  it  appeared  under  many  and  varying  guises 
and  forms  all  through  the  course  of  the  historic  ages. 
The  ancient  empires  of  the  East  knew  it.  Eoman 
administrators  utilized  it.  Diocletian  developed  it. 
Charlemagne  would  have  been  helpless  without  it.  In 
the  progressive  organization  of  the  medieval  Church 
it  found  a  place.  By  means  of  it  the  Capetians  laid 
those  firm  foundations  on  which  monarchs  of  a  later 
time  established  absolutism  in  France  during  the  six- 
teenth and  seventeenth  centuries.  In  England  the 
course  and  development  of  the  royal  council  have  been 
traced  with  exceptional  clearness  through  various 
stages  until  in  Lancastrian  days  it  became  known  as 
the  Privy  Council.  In  time  an  inner  body  differen- 
tiated itself  from  the  Privy  Council.  This  inner 
council,  attracting  attention,  was  occasionally  termed 
the  Cabinet  Council  early  in  the  seventeenth  century. 
This  was  the  precursor  of  the  Cabinet  Committee  over 
which  after  many  difficulties  Parliament  was  destined 
at  length  to  gain  a  controlling  grasp — the  committee 
around  which  the  working  government  of  England  is 
organized,  and  by  means  of  which  that  government  is 
directed. 

Into  the  manifold  and  subtle  intricacies  of  these 
many  historic  councils  it  is  not  the  plan  to  enter. 
Whatever  is  true  regarding  the  origin  of  the  American 
President 's  Cabinet  Council,  that  institution  was  in  no 
sense  a  conscious  imitation  of  any  organization  in 
existence  at  the  epoch  of  its  creation.  Nevertheless  it 
was  certainly  the  expression  of  a  need  quite  as  old  as 


INTRODUCTION 


government — the  need,  in  brief,  of  a  corps  of  closely 
associated   assistants   qualified   to   aid   an   executive 
chief  magistrate  in  whom  leadership   and  directive 
force  were  intended  to  be  vigorous  and  really  effective. 

Such  officers  as  at  first  constituted  the  President's 
Cabinet — three  Secretaries  known  as  heads  of  depart- 
ments and  an  Attorney-General — were  similar  to 
administrative  officers  found  not  only  in  the  govern- 
ment of  England  but  elsewhere  in  western  Europe. 
Indeed  they  were  foreshadowed  by  somewhat  similar 
officials  in  the  various  American  colonies,  although  not 
by  exact  prototypes. 

The  term  cabinet  or  cabinet  council  is  English. 
There  was  just  a  sufficient  analogy  between  the  group 
of  officials  which  formed  the  English  Cabinet  late  in 
the  eighteenth  century  and  the  American  President's 
intimate  advisers  at  the  same  time1  to  make  the  appli- 
cation of  the  English  term  to  the  American  group 
appear  to  be  reasonably  significant.  It  should,  how- 
ever, be  remembered  that  the  English  Cabinet  Com- 
mittee had  developed  in  the  course  of  a  complicated 
evolution  of  party  practices  and  peculiar  circum- 
stances into  a  parliamentary  committee  which  was 
largely  responsible  even  at  that  time  to  the  House  of 
Commons.  Historic  processes  were  pressing  it  for- 
ward to  its  goal,  a  place  of  such  influence  that  it  was 
to  become  the  deciding  factor  in  matters  of  govern- 
ment policy  long  before  the  close  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  Its  spokesman  and  director  was  already 
customarily  known  as  the  Prime  Minister.  The  Presi- 
dent's Cabinet,  in  contrast  to  the  English  institution, 


4  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

was  essentially  and  simply  an  advisory  council  quite 
independent  of  the  Legislature.  The  President  sum- 
moned it  if  he  wished  to  do  so.  To  the  President  alone 
its  members  were  responsible.  It  had  at  the  start  no 
pivotal  place  in  the  structure  of  the  American  govern- 
ment, certainly  no  place  that  was  so  recognized  out- 
side of  its  immediate  membership.  Indeed  _the  prin- 
ciple of  the  Cabinet's  distinct  association  with  the 
executive  chief  alonejwas  not  determined  until  early 
practices  under  Washington_ajid  his  immediate  suc- 
cessors had  developed  the  principle  into  clearness,  and 
given  it  authority.  Moreover,  the  responsibility 
imposed  upon  the  President  by  the  Constitution  has 
always  tended  to  keep  the  Cabinet  a  subordinate 
element  in  our  government.  As  an  advisory  body  it 
has  beei^j^4ete¥eftti«g_a4dition  to  the  executive,  at 
times  helping  mjichJu^HfB^JaTor  ma*4  the  reputation  of 
a  President,  for  +-'hg  C^net  ^'"st  often  be  utilize"d  to 
create  if  not  to  direcj^a  President's  policy,  and  to 
shape  his  attitude  toward  various  problems  of  moment*' 
to  the  nati^njaLjatolfaie.  TTnspjvn  in  if.s  working^" hnt. 
presumably  supporting  him  in  his  plans,  the  Cabinet^ 
is  a  combination  of  qualified  experts  that  has  stood 
behind  every  chief  magistrate.  The  President  may 
of  course  ignore  the  advice  of  his  council,  but — as 
Alexander  Hamilton  cogently  observed  in  18001 — no 
President  can  as  a  rule  afford  to  do  so.  If  one  were  to 
seek  identity  of  type  for  the  President's  Cabinet,  one 
could  probably  discover  it  more  easily  in  the  organi- 
zation of  the  French  monarchy  before  1789  than  in  the 

i  WorTcs  (ed.  H.  C.  Lodge),  VI,  419. 


INTRODUCTION 


government  of  England,  for  the  Cabinet  is  a  veritable 
conseil  du  roi. 

From  a  time  soon  after  the  formation  of  the  Consti- 
tution down  to  the  present  day  the  associates  of  the 
President  who  compose  the  Cabinet  have  been  freely 
termed  "constitutional  advisers. "  Hamilton  thus 
characterized  them.2  Such  usage,  although  loose,  rests 
partly  on  the  fact  that  the  Constitution  as  well  as  the 
statute  law  helped  to  predetermine  a  council. 

The  Constitution  referred  to  the  "principal  officer 
in  each  of  the  executive  Departments, "  and  again  to 
the  "Heads  of  Departments ' r :  the  President  might 
require  their  opinions  "in  writing "  upon  any  subject 
relating  to  the  duties  of  their  respective  offices. 
Although  not  expressly  enjoining  executive  depart- 
ments, the  Constitution  thus  clearly  contemplated 
principal  officers.  In  accordance  with  this  view  the 
first  Congress  under  the  new  government  in  1789  pro- 
ceeded among  its  earliest  acts  to  draw  up  laws  for  the 
establishment  of  three  Secretaryships,  and  to  provide 
for  the  office  of  Attorney-General.  By  1792,  or  per- 
haps a  little  earlier,  the  practice  of  President  Wash- 
ington brought  these  four  officers  together  as  an 
advisory  council.  In  1793  the  body  was  popularly 
termed  the  Cabinet.  In  the  course  of  time  Washing- 
ton's practice,  persisted  in  by  his  successors,  became 
an  established  custom. 

Five  other  officials  with  duties  clearly  defined  in  the 
laws  have  since  been  added  to  the  original  four, 
making  to-day  a  council  of  nine  regular  advisers  about 

2  For  a  discussion  of  this  usage  see  chapter  XIII,  pp.  389  ff. 


THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 


the  President.  Although  the  laws  which  from  time  to 
time  have  provided  for  the  creation  of  these  nine 
officials  have  taken  no  account  of  their  combination 
into  a  body  of  counsellors,  it  should  be  observed, 
nevertheless,  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  (1798), 
the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  (1849),  the  Secretary  of 
Agriculture  (1889),  and  the  Secretary  of  Commerce 
and  Labor  (1903)  were  regularly  conceived  of  as 
"cabinet"  associates  of  the  chief  magistrate  at  the 
different  times  at  which  the  bills  creating  these  respec- 
tive offices  were  discussed,  passed,  and  sanctioned. 
In  fact  it  is  assumed  to-day  simply  as  a  matter  of 
course  that  the  "Secretary"  of  a  new  department  will 
become  as  such  an  intimate  adviser  and  associate  of 
the  President,  and  that  by  mere  custom  he  is  entitled 
to  cabinet  place  and  rank.  Yet  there  has  never  been 
either  constitutional  or  legal  provision  requiring  the 
President  to  consult  or  to  summon  the  Cabinet.  Once 
only  has  the  term  Cabinet  been  allowed  thus  far  to 
slip  into  a  federal  statute,  the  word  appearing  for  the 
first  time  in  a  law  signed  by  President  Roosevelt  on 
February  26,  1907.  The  Cabinet,  in  brief,  remains 
to-day  what  it  was  at  the  beginning,  a  customary  body  \ 
of  advisers.  ' 

No  thoroughly  complete  history  of  such  a  customary 
institution  as  the  President's  Cabinet  can,  I  think,  be 
written.  Here  and  there  for  lack  of  evidence  its  story 
must  ever  remain  unknown — concealed  'by  impene- 
trable darkness.  Research  and  discovery,  however, 
aided  by  inference  and  reflection,  should  yield  much 


INTRODUCTION 


in  the  way  of  reliable  information  on  the  following 
subjects : 

I.     Origin,  Formation,  and  Structure. 
II.     Practices  and  Personnel. 

The  present — and  first — series  of  Studies  has  been 
written  chiefly  from  such  historic  materials  as  throw 
light  especially  on  the  origin  and  structural  offices  of 
the  institution.  This  series  is  consequently  limited  to 
setting  forth  the  anatomy  in  contrast  to  the  functions 
of  the  Cabinet.  It  seemed  essential  to  discover  and 
present  those  factors  and  influences  which  could 
account  for  the  early  summoning  under  President 
Washington  of  the  council,  and  for  the  council's 
natural  enlargement  by  the  gradual  addition  of  chief 
offices.  The  historic  development  of  administrative 
work,  which  not  only  brought  heavy  tasks  to  the  shoul- 
ders of  the  secretariat  but  also  increased  the  respon- 
sibility of  the  President,  has  had  to  be  observed  and 
frequently  commented  on.  While  under  this  first 
phase  of  the  subject  I  have  refrained  from  venturing 
far  into  the  domain  of  political  practices,  and  have 
avoided  the  entanglements  of  personal  factors,  at  very 
few  points  in  the  narrative  could  I  forget  how  impor- 
tant practices  and  personnel  must  always  have  been 
to  the  vitality  of  the  institution  as  an  element  in  the 
workings  of  the  national  government. 

In  order  to  complete  my  plan  I  have  in  process  of 
construction  a  second  series  of  Studies  which  are  con- 
cerned with  the  whole  subject  of  Cabinet  Practices 
and  Personnel.  This  second  series  is  designed  to  con- 


THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 


sider  such  subjects  as  cabinet  appointments  and  resig- 
nations, the  qualifications  of  cabinet  officers,  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Cabinet  on  executive  policy  and  on  legisla- 
tion, the  history  of  the  cabinet  meeting;  and  to  set 
forth  some  of  the  curious  episodes  that  have  occa- 
sionally marked  the  history  of  the  institution. 


CHAPTER  I 

HISTORIC   SIGNIFICANCE   OF   THE   TERM   "  CABINET "   IN 

ENGLAND 


THE  period  of  three  centuries  following  the  Nor- 
man Conquest  was  a  formative  one  for  English 
institutions.  The  circumstances  of  the  Conquest 
brought  immense  authority  to  the  Crown.  This 
authority  was  certain  to  be  controlled  and  limited 
as  English  liberties  were  secured. 

The  original  nucleus  of  royal  power  was  the  curia 
regis.  The  early  history  of  this  body  would  involve 
an  account  of  the  gradual  and  complicated  process  by 
which  judicial,  executive,  legislative  and  political 
functions  were  separated,  one  from  another,  and 
assigned  to  different  organs.  Out  of  the  curia  regis 
there  developed  the  King's  Council.1  "At  no  time," 
says  a  recent  writer,2  "did  English  kings  fail  to  have 
particular  counsellors,  known  as  consiliarii,  consul- 
tores,  familiares,  domestici,  or  aulici,  including  men  of 
the  household,  of  the  curia,  and  of  the  exchequer.  In 
this  they  were  like  other  kings  (most  notably  the  King 
of  France),  other  princes,  and  even  bishops  and  barons 
who  possessed  councils  of  uncertain  composition. " 

1  A.  V.  Dicey,  The  Privy  Council  (1887),  pp.  2,  6-7. 

2  James  F.  Baldwin,  "The  Beginnings  of  the  King's  Council"  in 
Transactions  of  the  Eoyal  Historical  Society  (1905),  XIX,  n.  s.  29  ff. 


10  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Just  when  the  King's  personal  advisers  began  to  have 
a  recognized  position  as  a  distinct  and  organized  body 
it  is  not  easy  to  say.  The  view  of  Bishop  Stubbs  that 
this  council  can  be  traced  only  from  the  minority  of 
Henry  III  can  no  longer  be  accepted  because  of  the  dis- 
covery of  good  evidence  that  the  King's  Council  was 
already  distinct  and  organized  in  the  reign  of  John. 
It  seems  possible  that  it  may  yet  be  distinguished  as 
early  as  Henry  II  's  reign.  But  there  is  no  positive 
proof.3  We  know  that  the  Common  Council  of  the 
realm  claimed  under  Henry  III  the  right  to  nominate 
as  well  as  to  confirm  great  officers,4  and  thus  to  force 
the  King  to  choose  worthy  associates  as  his  personal 
advisers.  But  the  problem  presented  numberless  prac- 
tical difficulties,  especially  as  there  was  at  the  time  no 
developed  or  clearly  defined  legislative  power  apart 
from  the  King — no  Parliament  with  acknowledged 
prerogatives. 

The  historic  process  of  the  thirteenth  and  four- 
teenth centuries  brought  the  King's  Council  to  its 
maturity  by  the  close  of  the  Plantagenet  period.  It 
was  then  the  one  sworn  council  of  the  King.  Not  large 
in  numbers,  it  possessed,  nevertheless,  real  power  and 
efficiency  as  well  as  great  dignity.  Devoted  to  the 
work  of  legislation  as  well  as  administration,  touching 
at  times  on  the  domain  of  a  jealous  and  watchful  Par- 
liament, it  was  the  mainspring  of  government.  The 
powerful  status  to  which  it  had  attained  was  the  result 

3  Stubbs,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  4th  ed.  II,  40  ff.  For 
the  more  recent  view,  Baldwin  in  Trans,  of  the  Royal  Hist.  Soc.,  op.  cit., 
p.  32. 

*  Stubbs,  Constitutional  History,  II,  41. 


THE  TERM  "CABINET"  IN  ENGLAND  11 

of  the  cumulative  effect  of  custom  rather  than  of 
statutory  regulation.5 

In  the  fifteenth  century  under  the  house  of  Lan- 
caster the  Council,  now  coming  to  be  known  as  the 
Privy  Council,  reached  its  greatest  power.  Through 
force  of  many  circumstances  it  was  able  to  over- 
shadow alike  the  Crown,  Parliament,  and  the  people. 
It  had  fallen  from  its  great  traditions  and  its  prestige 
by  the  time  of  Henry  VII 's  accession;  but  it  afforded 
the  later  Tudors,  intent  upon  building  up  a  great 
system  of  centralization,  a  royal  instrument  by  means 
of  which  they  were  enabled  to  establish  organized  and 
efficient  rule  throughout  the  kingdom.  Under  their 
sway  the  Privy  Council  gathered  together  and  held 
all  the  threads  of  administration  and  diplomacy.6  In 
its  effectiveness  as  a  Tudor  organ,  it  has  been  char- 
acterized as  "practically  the  predecessor  of  the 
modern  Cabinet  of  Ministers/'7 

Soon  after  the  coming  to  the  throne  of  the  obstinate 
and  injudicious  line  of  the  Stuarts,  the  problem  of  the 
relations  of  the  King  to  his  personal  associates  and 
close  political  advisers  began  to  assume  a  foremost 

5  Baldwin,    "Early   Records    of   the   King's    Council"    in   American 
Historical   Review    (October,    1905),    XI,    1-15.      "Antiquities    of    the 
King's  Council"  in  English  Historical  Review   (January,  1906),  XXI, 
1-20.     "The  King's  Council  from  Edward  I  to  Edward  III"  in  Eng. 
Hist.  Rev.   (January,  1908),  XXIII,  1-14.     "The  Privy  Council  of  the 
Time  of  Richard  II"  in  Amer.  Hist.  Rev.  (October,  1906),  XII,  1-14. 

6  Dicey,   Privy   Council;   J.  F.    Baldwin,   as   previously   cited;    Lord 
Eustace  Percy,   The  Privy  Council  under  the  Tudors   (Stanhope  Prize 
Essay,  1907),  pp.  1-2. 

1  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council  of  England  (1542-1547).  J.  R.  Dasent, 
ed.,  I,  Preface,  viii. 


12  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

place.  By  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Charles  I  it 
was  clearly  defined.  What  its  solution  would  be  was 
determined  as  a  result  of  the  political  upheaval  which 
followed.  In  the  seventeenth  century  parliamentary 
government  germinated.  It  developed  markedly  in 
the  eighteenth  century.  The  maturity  of  the  system 
is  one  of  the  characteristic  features  of  English  govern- 
ment in  the  nineteenth  century. 

The  personal  monarchy  of  Charles  I,  with  all  that 
it  implied  in  the  way  of  restriction  of  popular  rights 
and  widespread  oppression,  was  more  than  a  pro- 
gressive people  could  endure.  At  the  very  outset  of 
the  reign  the  claims  of  the  Crown  and  Parliament  were 
felt  to  be  incompatible.  The  Commons  demanded 
supremacy  in  the  state  and  attempted  to  extract  from 
the  King  a  promise  that  he  would  change  his  ministers 
whenever  the  Commons  were  displeased  with  them. 
Parliament  really  was  striving  to  make  the  govern- 
ment dependent  upon  itself.  In  other  words  the  idea 
of  parliamentary  leadership  was  assuming  a  positive 
and  aggressive  maturity.  At  the  time,  as  perhaps 
never  before,  English  popular  opinion  won  not  only 
expression  but  very  capable  direction.  It  was  inevi- 
tably an  epoch  of  experiment,  but  of  experiment  which 
often  was  made  along  conservative  and  older  lines. 

The  demand  that  the  King  submit  to  the  guidance 
of  such  worthy  counsellors  as  Parliament  could  trust 
was  so  frequently  reiterated  after  1640  that  its  reitera- 
tion is  strong  evidence  that  it  had  assumed  the  aspect 
of  a  very  vital  political  principle.  Among  numerous 
instances  it  was  clearly  formulated  in  the  petition  pre- 


THE  TERM  "CABINET"  IN  ENGLAND  13 

ceding  the  Grand  Remonstrance  (1641),  in  a  document 
according  to  which  the  King's  subjects  beg — 

That  your  Majesty  will  ....  be  pleased  to  remove  from 
your  council  all  such  as  persist  to  favour  and  promote  any 
of  those  pressures  and  corruptions  wherewith  your  people 
have  been  grieved,  and  that  for  the  future  your  Majesty  will 
vouchsafe  to  employ  such  persons  in  your  great  and  public 
affairs,  and  to  take  such  to  be  near  you  in  places  of  trust,  as 
your  Parliament  may  have  cause  to  confide  in  ...  .8 

Such  a  demand,  when  put  into  practical  shape,  meant 
a  government  residing  in  a  body  of  men  acting  under 
the  control  of  Parliament. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  analyze  the  steps  taken  or 
projected  by  the  Long  Parliament  from  1640  onwards 
for  the  purpose  of  wresting  from  Charles  certain 
special  powers  and  thereby  gaining  control  over 
administrative,  financial,  judicial,  and  military  affairs. 
It  is  enough  to  say  that  by  1644  Parliament  was  fully 
determined  in  its  purpose  to  control  such  matters. 
In  the  first  half  of  that  year,  in  view  of  the  indefinite 
continuance  of  the  war,  two  ordinances  were  passed, 
dated  respectively  February  16  and  May  22,  which 
provided  for  the  so-called  Committee  of  Both  King- 
doms. This  Committee,  composed  of  seven  Peers, 

8  S.  K.  Gardiner,  Constitutional  Documents  of  the  Puritan  Revolution 
(1889),  p.  129.  Gardiner  prints  his  volume  for  everyday  use,  and  conse- 
quently he  omits  old-fashioned  italics  and  numerous  capital  letters  and 
some  superfluous  commas.  The  same  passage  may  be  found  in  J.  Rush- 
worth,  Historical  Collections,  IV,  438.  Of.  the  similar  demand  of  the 
Grand  Eemonstrance,  Gardiner's  Documents,  pp.  131,  153,  154.  See  also 
the  demand  in  the  Ten  Propositions  of  June  24,  1641.  Ibid.,  p.  92.  Cf. 
pp.  125,  171  (Nineteen  Propositions),  246,  340  (Humble  Petition  and 
Advice  of  1657). 


14  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

fourteen  Commoners,  and  four  Commissioners  of  the 
Scottish  Parliament,  was  to  "order  and  direct  what- 
soever doth  or  may  concern  the  managing  of  the  war 
....  and  whatsoever  may  concern  the  peace  of 
his  Majesty's  dominions."  By  Mr.  Gardiner  it  is 
regarded  as  "the  first  attempt  to  give  practical  shape 
to  the  idea  of  a  government  residing  in  a  body  of  men 
acting  under  the  control  of  Parliament.  "9  Here, 
according  to  the  same  writer,  the  student  of  English 
institutions  comes  upon  "the  first  germ  of  the  modern 
Cabinet  system."  The  Committee  exercised  "general 
executive  powers  under  responsibility  to  Parliament. 
....  Though  it  was  not,  like  a  modern  Cabinet,  com- 
posed of  persons  of  only  one  shade  of  political  opinion, 
the  opinion  that  the  war  ought  to  be  carried  on  with 
vigour  was  decidedly  preponderant  in  it."  "That 
the  Committee  thus  instituted,"  he  adds,  "could  never 
be  more  than  an  interesting  experiment  was  the  nat- 
ural result  of  the  fact  that  the  Parliament  from  which 
it  sprung  had  no  claim  to  be  regarded  as  a  national 
body."10 

The  Committee  of  Both  Kingdoms  disappeared  in 
1648,  within  about  four  years  of  its  creation.  What 
the  reader  should  observe  is  this:  that  the  demand 

9S.  E.  Gardiner,  Constitutional  Documents,  Introd.,  pp.  xliii-xliv,  190, 
192.  The  first  Ordinance,  it  will  be  observed,  was  limited  to  three 
months.  Cf.  C.  H.  Firth,  The  House  of  Lords  during  the  Civil  War 
(1910),  pp.  138-141. 

10  Gardiner,  History  of  the  Great  Civil  War,  I,  357  ff.  As  yet  Gardiner 
is  the  only  historian  who  has  given  these  Ordinances  any  careful  atten- 
tion, although  Mr.  Firth  touches  upon  them  in  his  most  recent  book,  The 
House  of  Lords  during  the  Civil  War.  Cf.  D.  Masson,  The  Life  of 
John  Milton,  III  (ed.  1896),  41,  331,  579,  585. 


THE  TERM  "CABINET"  IN  ENGLAND  15 

which  called  it  into  existence  represented  a  sound  and 
fundamental  principle,  which  was  repeatedly  voiced 
or  formulated  during  the  epoch,  and  was  never  after- 
wards surrendered,  at  least  by  the  more  liberal 
leaders.  In  brief,  the  later  and  matured  English 
Cabinet  Committee  was  the  consummate  and  practical 
achievement  of  this  persistent  demand. 

II 

As  the  seventeenth  century  in  England  witnessed 
the  crude  beginnings  of  parliamentary  government, 
so  that  century  first  began  to  attach  political  signifi- 
cance to  the  term  cabinet.  The  term  had  originally 
appeared  in  the  language  of  the  sixteenth  century. 
Francis  Bacon  was  among  the  earliest  writers  to 
reflect  in  his  Essays^  its  political  sense.  From 
Bacon's  time  it  may  be  traced  with  many  varieties  of 
shadings  through  Speed,  Walter  Yonge,  Massinger, 
Clarendon,  Selden,  Pepys,  Sir  John  Eeresby  and 
Evelyn  to  Bolingbroke,  Swift,  Roger  North,  and  other 
memoir  writers  of  Queen  Anne's  and  the  Georgian 
epoch.12 

An  extract  from  the  State  Papers  dated  at  London, 
June  8,  1622,  reads  as  follows:  "Chamberlain  to 
Carleton.  A  Cabinet  Council  is  talked  of,  to  which 
the  most  secret  and  important  business  may  be  com- 
mitted  "13  This  is  the  earliest  usage  of  the  term 

"Ed.  S.  H.  Keynolds  (Oxford:  1891),  p.  148,  foot  note  a. 

12  See  Note  1  at  the  end  of  this  chapter. 

13  Calendars  of  State  Papers— Domestic  (1619-1623),  p.  404.    Cf.  also 
Mid.  (1623-1625),  pp.  156,  203.     On  April  23,  1625:  ''There  is  talk  of 


16  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

that  I  can  discover  in  these  valuable  and  miscellaneous 
sources.  By  the  last  decade  of  the  century,  however, 
the  term  is  frequently  found  in  them. 

The  varied  and  often  vague  applications  of  the  term 
it  is  needless  to  dwell  upon.  For  much  of  the  seven- 
teenth century  it  signified  a  body  of  royal  counsellors 
or  ministers  which  met  in  private,  a  committee  of 
state  apt  to  be  concerned  with  such  secret  and  informal 
measures  as  Parliament  could  not  easily  fathom  or 
control.  It  was  seldom  used  without  opprobrium  even 
well  into  the  eighteenth  century.  There  is  no  better 
illustration  of  this  than  in  two  discussions  of  the  term 
as  it  cropped  up  in  Parliament  in  the  years  1692  and 
1711  respectively. 

"  i Cabinet-Council'  [retorted  an  angry  member  in 
the  House  of  Commons  in  November,  1692]  is  not  a 
word  to  be  found  in  our  Law-books.  We  knew  it  not 
before;  we  took  it  for  a  nick-name.  Nothing  can  fall 
out  more  unhappily  than  to  have  a  distinction  made 
of  the  l  Cabinet '  and  *  Privy  Council.'  ....  If  some 
of  the  Privy  Council  must  be  trusted,  and  some  not, 
to  whom  must  any  gentleman  apply?  Must  he  ask, 
'Who  is  a  Cabinet-Counsellor?'  This  creates  mis- 

a  selected  or  Cabinet  Council,  whereto  none  are  admitted  but  the  Duke  of 
Buckingham,  the  Lords  Treasurer  and  Chamberlain,  Lord  Brooke,  and 
Lord  Conway. ' '  Walter  Yonge  probably  refers  to  the  same  matter  when 
he  records  in  June,  1625,  this  entry  in  his  Diary  (p.  83,  Camden  Society, 
1848) :  "The  King  made  choice  of  six  of  the  nobility  for  his  Council  of 
the  Cabinet."  On  July  14,  1630,  Sir  Thomas  Eoe  referred  to  Sir  Henry 
Vane — as  Mr.  Gardiner  long  since  (1886)  pointed  out — as  one  "who  is 
of  the  Cabinet."  Cal  of  St.  Papers — Domestic  (1629-1631),  p.  306. 
According  to  Clarendon  (History,  I,  263,  ed.  of  1826),  within  a  few  years 
the  terms  "Committee  of  State,"  "Junto,"  and  "Cabinet  Council" 
were  used  synonymously  when  a  group  of  royal  advisers  was  referred  to. 


THE  TERM  "CABINET"  IN  ENGLAND  17 

trust  in  the  people "u  "The  method  of  the 

cabinet  [declared  another  member  on  the  same  occa- 
sion] is  not  the  method  nor  the  practice  of  England 
....  things  are  concerted  in  the  Cabinet,  and  then 

brought  to  the  council If  this  method  be,  you 

will  never  know  who  gives  advice "15 

In  January,  1711,  discussion  arose  in  the  House 
of  Lords  over  the  question  of  using  the  term 
cabinet  council — as  at  first  it  was  proposed  to  do — 
or  ministers  in  a  resolution  of  censure.  It  was 
objected  that  both  terms  were  ambiguous.  Both 
terms,  moreover,  were  unknown  to  the  law.  Of  the 
two,  ministers  or  ministry  was  called  "too  copious " 
in  its  meaning,  for  the  Cabinet  Council,  it  was 
observed,  did  not  take  in  all  the  ministers.  The  dis- 
cussion became  strenuous  and  was  delaying  really 
important  and  pressing  business,  when  the  Earl  of 
Peterborough  gave  it  an  amusing  turn  by  reminding 
his  colleagues  of  a  distinction  with  which  he  was 
familiar.  He  had  heard,  he  said,  that  "the  Privy 
Counsellors  were  such  as  were  thought  to  know  every 
thing  and  knew  nothing ;  and  ....  those  of  the  Cabinet 
Council  thought  nobody  knew  any  thing  but  them- 
selves  "16 

However  reproachful  the  reflections  cast  on  the  term 
by  members  of  Parliament  might  be,  "  cabinet "  or 
"cabinet  council"  was  well  recognized  and  in  frequent 
use  by  the  last  decade  of  the  seventeenth  century. 

w  Parliamentary  History,  V,  731. 
is  H>id.,  V,  733. 
16  Ibid.,  VI,  971  ff. 


18  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Thus  on  June  16,  1690,  the  Marquis  of  Carmarthen, 
writing  to  King  William  III,  says :  "The  Lords  of  the 

Cabinet  think "17    A  week  later:  "Her  Majesty 

is  very  diligent  at  cabinet  councils The  Queen 

hereupon  called  the  cabinet  council  and  gave  several 

orders "u     On  September  5,  1694,  there  was 

recorded  the  draft  of  a  summons  "to  the   Cabinet 
Council  to  meet  this  day  at  5  p.m "19 

III 

Behind  the  term,  which  it  has  been  comparatively 
easy  to  trace,  was  the  thing — the  Committee  or  Council 
of  the  Cabinet.  It  would  certainly  be  vain  to  seek  any 
precise  beginnings  for  such  a  committee;  the  search 
for  these  would  lead  inevitably  into  a  maze  of  prac- 
tices which  are  found  far  back  in  history.  But  two 
matters  are  tolerably  clear :  in  the  first  place  some  such 
committee  began  to  attract  enough  attention  to  be 
noted  in  the  records  of  the  first  quarter  of  the  seven- 
teenth century;  and  writers  of  authority  in  that  cen- 
tury regarded  the  Cabinet  Committee  as  an  offshoot 
of  the  Privy  Council,  itself  the  traditional  organ  of 
executive  power.  Eoger  North,  for  example,  basing 
his  statements  on  records  left  by  his  brother,  Francis 
North,  the  Lord  Keeper  Guilford,  intimately  asso- 
ciated with  the  government  of  Charles  II,  could  say 
of  the  Cabinet  Council  this :  "  as  offices  of  the  law,  out 
of  clerkships,  spawn  other  offices,  so  this  council  was 

17  Calendars  of  State  Papers — Domestic   (1690-1691),  p.  33. 
p.  38. 
(1694-1695),  p.  295. 


THE  TERM  "CABINET"  IN  ENGLAND  19 

derived  from  the  Privy  Council,  which,  originally,  was 

the  same  thing Assemblies,  at  first,  reasonably 

constituted  of  a  due  number  and  temper  for  dispatch 
of  affairs  committed  to  them,  by  improvident  increase, 
came  to  be  formal  and  troublesome,  the  certain  conse- 
quence of  multitude,  and  thereby  a  new  institution 
becomes  necessary:  whereupon  it  is  found  easier  and 
safer  to  substitute  than  to  dissolve.  Thus  the  cabinet 
council,  which,  at  first,  was  but  in  the  nature  of  a 
private  conversation,  came  to  be  a  formal  council,  and 
had  the  direction  of  most  transactions  of  the  Govern- 
ment, foreign  and  domestic. '  >2°  Although  this  well- 
known  passage  may  have  been  descriptive  of  what 
took  place  under  Charles  II  near  the  opening  of  the 
reign,  it  can  reasonably  be  interpreted  as  having  had, 
in  its  author's  mind,  a  more  general  and  wider  appli- 
cation. In  the  wider  sense  it  affords  a  statement 
close  to  historic  truth. 

Institutions  have  a  way  of  appearing  before  they 
are  named.  And  this  postulate  would  tend  to  turn 
the  student  on  the  trail  of  the  Cabinet  Committee  into 
the  Tudor  epoch.  Knowledge  of  the  workings  of  the 
Privy  Council  within  the  epoch  is  still  very  incom- 
plete, but  it  is  larger  than  that  of  the  Stuart  epoch, 
for  as  yet  the  acts  of  the  Council  after  1604  have  not 
been  printed.21  Under  the  Tudors  the  mass  of  admin- 

20 E.  North,  Lives  of  the  Norths  (London:  1826,  3  vols.  ),  II,  50-51. 
Cf.  John  Trenchard,  A  Short  History  of  Standing  Armies  in  England 
(1698),  for  a  similar  view. 

21  Lord  Eustace  Percy,  op.  cit.,  pp.  35-39,  68  ff.  G.  W.  Prothero, 
Introd.  to  Statutes  and  Constitutional  Documents  (1559-1625),  pp. 
xcviii  ff. 


20  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

istrative,  judicial  and  executive  business  in  the  hands 
of  the  Privy  Council  was  enormous.  The  size  of  the 
Council  increased,  especially  under  Edward  VI  and 
Mary.  With  larger  tasks  than  ever  to  perform,  it  was 
inevitable  that  it  should  delegate  some  of  its  jurisdic- 
tion if  not  its  authority.  Under  Edward  VI  and  his 
successor  the  work  of  the  Privy  Council  was  divided 
among  sundry  committees,  the  most  notable  of  which 
was  probably  the  Committee  of  State  of  1553.  From 
this  point  Sir  William  E.  Anson  dates  the  permanency 
of  the  practice  of  discussing  important  business  in  an 
interior  council.  This  committee  may  be  regarded, 
according  to  the  same  writer,  as  the  precursor  of  the 
Committee  of  State  of  1640  which  Clarendon  described 
as  being  termed  by  way  of  reproach  a  "Cabinet 
Council."  "It  seems,"  says  Anson,  "almost  inevi- 
table that  unless  the  entire  Privy  Council  was  often 
reconstituted  the  treatment  of  important  matters  must 
pass  into  the  hands  of  a  few.  The  Council  would 
always  contain  men  qualified  for  one  cause  or  another 
to  be  Councillors  of  the  Crown  but  not  possessed  of 
the  practical  sagacity,  promptitude  of  judgment,  and 
force  of  character  which  come  into  play  when  some 
crisis  calls  for  immediate  action  and  nothing  that  can 
be  done  is  free  from  risk.  The  men  who  possess  these 
qualities  would  be  the  men  to  form  the  l  Committee  of 
State/  the  ' junto,'  the  ' Cabinet.'  >>22 

22  Anson,  The  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  Pt.  II,  The 
Crown  (2d  ed.,  1896),  pp.  92-93.  Anson  draws  his  conclusion  from  Bur- 
net's  History  of  the  He  formation,  V,  119,  from  the  minutes  of  a  cabinet 
council  of  August  16,  1640  (The  HardwicJce  Papers,  II,  147),  and  from 
Clarendon's  comments  in  his  History,  Bk.  II,  ss.  61,  99.  Lord  Eustace 


THE  TERM  "CABINET"  IN  ENGLAND  21 

This  truly  notable  conclusion  which  places  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  practice  of  interior  councils — in  other 
words  the  beginnings  of  the  Cabinet  Committee — back 
in  the  Tudor  epoch  is  plausible.  It  rests  upon  insuffi- 
cient evidence  to  make  it  altogether  convincing.  What 
it  helps  to  explain  is  this:  the  appearance  under 
James  I  of  a  new  political  phrase;  the  apparent 
decline  of  the  Privy  Council  in  position  and  power 
under  the  Stuarts. 

The  practice  of  advising  with  an  inner  ring  of  coun- 
cillors or  of  going  even  outside  the  Privy  Council  for 
advice  was  certain  to  arouse  the  suspicions  of  a  watch- 
ful Parliament.  It  would  seem,  moreover,  to  give 
special  point  to  Clarendon's  observation  regarding 
Charles  I,  that  the  King's  failure  properly  to  estimate 
the  importance  of  the  Privy  Council  as  an  institution 
and  to  maintain  its  authority  was  one  of  the  chief 
causes  which  help  to  explain  the  fall  of  the  monarchy.23 
There  is  no  doubt,  however,  that  the  practice  of  inner 
councils  was  continued  under  Charles  II,  but  with  cer- 
tain modifications  that  reveal  some  growing  deference 
on  the  part  of  the  monarch  toward  Parliament.  Once 
back  in  England  in  1660,  the  circumstances  of  the 
political  situation  forced  upon  Charles  a  large  and 
unmanageable  Privy  Council.  It  was  soon  found 
expedient  to  divide  it  into  various  committees.  Con- 
spicuous among  these  was  the  so-called  Committee  of 
Foreign  Affairs.  There  was  another  committee,  which 

Percy  detects  in  some  of  the  Marian  and  Elizabethan  committees  of  the 
Privy  Council  elements  of  permanency.    Op.  cit.,  p.  39. 

23  C.  H.  Firth  in  English  Historical  Eeview,  January,  1904,  pp.  42  ff . 
(Art.:  "Clarendon's  'History  of  the  Kebellion.'  ") 


22  TEE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Clarendon  describes  in  this  way.  The  King,  he 
wrote — 

appointed  the  chancellor  and  some  others  to  have  frequent 
consultations  with  such  members  of  the  parliament  who  were 
most  able  and  willing  to  serve  him;  and  to  concert  all  the 
ways  and  means  by  which  the  transactions  in  the  houses 
might  be  carried  with  the  more  expedition,  and  attended  with 
the  best  success.24 

This  latter  measure  is  suggestive  of  Temple's  well- 
known  plan  of  1679,  which  proved  to  be  a  vain 
endeavor  to  establish  a  sort  of  mechanism  by  which 
Parliament  and  the  King's  Council  could  work 
together.  But  the  complaint  of  the  time  was  that 
some  Cabinet  Council  "  takes  things  out  of  the  hands 
of  the  Privy  Council"25 — a  complaint  that  w^s  based 
on  the  conviction  that  so  long  as  any  inner  committee 
of  the  Privy  Council,  called  by  whatever  name, 
remained  under  royal  control,  such  a  committee  must 
be  only  a  variation  of  a  time-worn  means  of  sustaining 
the  King's  arbitrary  power. 

The  King's  arbitrary  power  was  precisely  the  tradi- 
tional feature  of  government  which  the  more  liberal 
English  statesmen  of  the  seventeenth  century  endeav- 
ored to  find  means  to  control.  Inasmuch  as  the  future 
liberties  of  the  nation  were  felt  to  depend  on  the 
success  or  the  failure  of  their  efforts  in  this  direction, 
the  issue  became  the  most  vital  one  of  the  century. 
As  it  matured,  it  was  destined  to  give  form  and 

&The  Life  of  Edward  Earl  of  Clarendon.  By  Himself  (Oxford: 
1857),  I,  308.  T.  H.  Lister,  Life  and  Administration  of  Edward,  First 
Earl  of  Clarendon,  II,  6  ff . 

25  Grey's  Debates,  VI,  313.    December,  1678. 


THE  TERM  "CABINET"  IN  ENGLAND  23 

impetus  to  numerous  ideas  and  practices.  Among 
ideas  was  the  conception  of  the  importance  and  grow- 
ing need  of  some  sort  of  parliamentary  control  over 
the  King's  advisers,  especially  over  those  inner  coun- 
cils which  were  too  apt  to  direct  and  sway  his  policy. 
Among  practices  may  be  noted  those  which  prevailed 
during  the  period  of  the  Long  Parliament — the 
appointing  of  parliamentary  committees  for  executive 
purposes.26  Taken  together,  this  conception  and  the 
practice  of  parliamentary  executive  committees  may 
be  regarded  as  the  most  important  contributions  of 
the  seventeenth  century  toward  the  formation  of 
England's  future  government. 


IV 


The  eighteenth  century  was  marked  by  a  steady  but 
rather  unconscious  development  of  parliamentary  or 
committee  government  in  England.  The  process  had 
certainly  begun  long  before  that  period,  but  it  was 
invigorated  by  and  rested  upon  ideals  that  were 
largely  the  outcome  of  the  seventeenth-century  strug- 
gles between  King  and  Parliament.  From  the  epoch 
of  the  Revolution  which  brought  William  and  Mary 
to  the  throne,  the  problem  was  essentially  this:  the 
arrangement  of  political  mechanism  in  a  way  such  as 

26 ' '  The  practice  of  appointing  committees  is  almost  as  old  as  Parlia- 
ment itself,  but  the  appointment  of  committees  for  executive  purposes 
was  the  invention  of  the  seventeenth  century  ....  it  remains  certain 
that  it  was  the  one  method  of  the  Long  Parliament."  Edward  Jenks, 
The  Constitutional  Experiments  of  the  Commonwealth  (Cambridge  Hist. 
Essays,  No.  Ill),  p.  12. 


24  .  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

would  allow  Parliament  or  more  especially  the  House 
of  Commons  to  gain  control  of  the  small  and  informal 
group  of  intimate  royal  advisers  sometimes  termed 
the  Cabinet  Committee.  It  was  •  particularly  to  the 
credit  of  Eobert  Spencer,  second  Earl  of  Sunderland, 
perhaps  the-  most  influential  director  of  William's 
internal  policy,  that  he  pointed  out  to  the  King  the 
importance  of  securing  parliamentary  support'  by 
giving,  the  great  offices  to  parliamentary  leaders  and 
making  these  his  ministers.  Moreover,  he  perceived 
the  advantages  to  be  gained  if  the  monarch  could  be 
induced  to  prefer  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  parties, 
Whigs  and  Tories.27  Sunderland 's  advice  was  along 
these  lines  in  the  last  decade  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, and  helped  toward  the  solution  of  the  problem 
which  proved  to  mean  in  the  long  run  that  Parliament 
would  ultimately  contain,  nominate,  guide  and  control 
its  own  executive.28 

Near  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century  within 
the  reign  of  Anne  there  was  an  informal  Cabinet  Com- 
mittee, councillors  and  administrative  officers  who 
were  exercising  functions  in  the  state  that  can  be 
traced  in  part  from  those  of  the  old  Tudor  office  of 
Principal  Secretary  of  State.  There  was  no  clear 
evidence  that  the  individuals  composing  this  com- 
mittee recognized  their  responsibility  for  the  conduct 
of  affairs.  They  owed  as  yet  no  special  allegiance  to 
any  one  of  their  number.  And  they  were  still  unaware 
that  their  continuance  in  office  would  depend  on  the 

27  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  LIII,  368  ff. 

28  John  Morley,  Walpole  (English  Statesmen  ser.),  p.  139. 


THE  TERM  "CABINET"  IN  ENGLAND  25 

continuance  of  the  support  of  a  majority  of  the  House 
of  Commons.29  In  unforeseen  ways  both  circumstances 
and  personnel  kept  affecting  the  practices  of  govern- 
ment. But  neither  the  meaning  of  circumstances  nor 
the  force  of  personality  could  be  determined  easily  or 
quickly  in  respect  to  their  influence  on  the  process  of 
the  development  of  committee  government. 

Two  conservative  clauses  in  the  Act  of  Settlement- 
were  summarily  nullified  in  the  early  part  of  Anne's 
reign  by  being  repealed.30  As  originally  passed,  they 
raised  a  barrier  directly  in  the  way  of  parliamentary 
control  over  the  ministry.  Yet  neither  when  they  were 
first  incorporated  into  the  law  nor  when  they  were 
repealed,  could  men  have  understood  their  full  bear- 
ing on  the  future  of  governmental  mechanism.  The 
Tories,  eager  to  check  the  practices  of  interior  coun- 
cils by  reviving  the  authority  of  the  Privy  Council, 
were  responsible  for  a  provision  of  the  Act  of  Settle- 
ment which  declared  that  all  matters  properly  cogni- 
zable in  the  Privy  Council  by  the  laws  and  customs  of 
the  rea.lm  were  to  be  transacted  there,  and  furthermore 
that  all  Privy  Councillors  advising  and  consenting  to 
any  resolution  must  sign  such  resolution.  Another 
provision  excluded  all  servants  of  the  Crown  from  the 
House  of  Commons.  The  restriction  on  a  stateman's 
liberty  in  the  first  provision  was  against  the  sentiment 
of  the  time.  The  second  provision  would  have 
destroyed  close  relations  between  the  executive  and  the 
legislature,  and  by  withdrawing  ministers  from  the 


,  Law  and  Custom,  Pt.  II,  p.  105. 
304  Anne,  c.  8,  ss.  24,  25. 


26  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

House  of  Commons  would  have  weakened  completely 
its  influence. 

The  directive  forces  of  the  century,  the  forces  which 
carried  parliamentary  government  well  along  towards 
maturity,  were  with  the  Whigs.  And  Walpole  prob- 
ably did  more  than  any  single  man  within  the  century 
to  establish  what  has  been  called  the  bias  of  the  sys- 
tem. Many  circumstances  and  many  men  aided  in  the 
process.  The  harmony  of  policy  that  existed  between 
the  Whig  leaders  and  two  such  foreigners  as  George  I 
and  George  II  was  a  circumstance  of  paramount 
importance.  The  reactionary  effort  of  George  III, 
nourished  as  a  youth  on  the  conservative  philosophy 
of  Bolingbroke's  Idea  of  a  Patriot  King,  failed  miser- 
ably.31 Yet  the  fact  of  its  failure  was  not  to  be  foretold 
much  before  the  close  of  the  American  Eevolution. 
The  Whigs  had  inherited  the  liberal  traditions  of 
government  from  the  seventeenth  century.  Their 
ideas  molded  the  Cabinet  into  a  vital  institution. 

There  was  no  writer  in  the  eighteenth  century  who 
attempted  to  make  an  exposition  of  the  place  of  the 
Cabinet  Committee  in  the  English  system  of  govern- 
ment. 

Montesquieu's  Esprit  des  Lois,  which  appeared  in 
1748,  set  forth  an  idealized  view  of  the  British  Consti- 
tution which  influenced  a  number  of  conspicuous 
writers  on  law  and  government.  The  French  author 

31  Bolingbroke 's  famous  essay  was  written  at  a  time  (1738)  when 
parliamentary  government  was  at  a  low  ebb.  The  attempt,  says  Mr. 
G.  W.  Alger,  "to  put  this  philosophy  into  effect  was  among  the  causes 
of  the  Eevolution  which  separated  us  from  Great  Britain."  Atlantic 
Monthly,  November,  1908,  pp.  581-582. 


THE  TEEM  "CABINET"  IN  ENGLAND  27 

perceived  some  of  the  great  principles  which  had  been 
at  work  and  were  making  for  the  advancement  of 
English  political  liberties.  He  was  convinced  that  the 
secret  of  the  Constitution  lay  in  the  clear  separation 
of  the  executive,  the  legislative,  and  the  judicial 
powers.  But  he  failed  to  see  or  to  appreciate  those 
subtle  features  of  parliamentary  custom  and  prac- 
tice, on  the  basis  of  which  the  Cabinet  was  assuming 
the  guise  of  a  working  and  organic  institution.32 

Blackstone  was  the  first  legal  writer  in  England 
over  whom  Montesquieu  had  a  marked  influence.  The 
Commentaries  were  published  between  1765  and  1769. 
Concerned  primarily  with  the  law  of  the  Constitution, 
the  work  took  no  account  of  such  a  customary  institu- 
tion as  the  Cabinet.  From  the  more  general  realm  of 
history  Blackstone  ventured  to  draw  the  ordinary 
distinctions  between  the  various  parts  of  the  mechan- 
ism of  government,  and  presented  the  optimistic  con- 
clusion that  the  British  Constitution  afforded  the  best 
of  all  possible  governments.  However  unsound  such 
views  might  be,  they  were  not  likely  to  detract  much 
from  the  essential  merits  of  the  great  treatise  in  which 
they  were  to  be  found,  or  to  attract  general  attention. 
Yet  it  was  just  these  views  that  furnished  the  means 
of  bringing  a  young  student  of  law  and  philosophy 
into  his  first  prominence  as  a  writer.33 

Moved  by  his  recollections  of  Blackstone 's  lectures 
at  Oxford,  with  which  at  the  time  he  heard  them 
(1763)  he  was  inclined  to  disagree,  and  convinced  of 

32  Especially  Bk.  XI,  ehap.  6. 

33  Paul  Janet,  Histoire  de  la  Science  Politique  (1887),  II,  399  ff. 


28  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

the  unhistoric  and  misleading  nature  of  certain  pas- 
sages in  Blackstone 's  first  volume,  Jeremy  Bentham 
published  anonymously  in  1776  A  Fragment  on  Gov- 
ernment. In  this  pamphlet  Bentham  took  Blackstone 
to  task  for  his  optimism,  and  discussed  at  some  length 
his  view  of  the  British  Constitution,  dwelling  upon 
the  great  lawyer's  failure  (as  he  conceived  it)  to  dis- 
tinguish clearly  or  adequately  the  executive  from  the 
legislative  power.  To  Bentham  the  work  of  the  Swiss 
writer,  De  Lolme,  appealed  as  far  more  thoughtful  and 
historically  sound  than  Blackstone 's.  While  Ben- 
tham 's  criticism  was  amply  justified,  it  rested  on  no 
intimate  knowledge  either  of  English  history  or  of 
parliamentary  practice,  and  was  accordingly  chiefly 
destructive.  It  is  notable,  however,  as  Bentham 's  first 
effort  to  apply  the  scientific  method  to  problems  of 
legislation.34 

The  original  edition  of  De  Lolme 's  Constitution  de 
rAngleterre  was  published  in  1771.35  Eevised  by 
its  author  several  times  and  considerably  elaborated, 
it  assumed  final  form  in  1784,  and  then  included  eleven 
chapters  in  addition  to  those  it  originally  had  con- 
tained, making  a  total  of  thirty-five  chapters  besides 
a  brief  Introduction  and  a  bibliographical  note.  Trans- 
lated into  English  a  few  years  after  its  first  appear- 
ance, it  attracted  many  readers,  among  them 
"Junius,"  Bentham,  Alexander  Hamilton  and  some 
other  American  statesmen.  The  work  was  no  doubt 

&A  Fragment  on  Government  (London:  1776).  Chapter  III,  British 
Constitution,  pp.  92-123.  Leslie  Stephen,  The  English  Utilitarians 
(New  York:  1900),  I,  181  ff. 

35  Amsterdam,  pp.  308. 


THE  TERM  "CABINET"  IN  ENGLAND  29 

suggested  by  Montesquieu's  well-known  views  on  the 
British  Constitution,  but  in  comparison  with  Montes- 
quieu it  afforded  a  more  systematic  and  detailed  study 
of  English  governmental  institutions,  particularly  of 
the  English  kingship  and  its  supposed  functions  in  the 
actual  government  of  the  kingdom.  Unlike  the  work 
of  Montesquieu,  which  took  its  final  form  on  its  first 
appearance  in  print,  De  Lolme 's  treatise  was  grad- 
ually developed  from  the  original  essay  of  1771  over 
a  period  of  thirteen  momentous  years.  Yet  it  is  true 
that  its  original  form  was  set  largely  by  impressions 
gathered  by  the  author  about  the  end  of  the  first 
decade  of  George  Ill's  rule. 

"The  first  peculiarity  of  the  English  government 
as  a  free  government,"  wrote  De  Lolme,  "is  its  having 
a  king — its  having  thrown  into  one  place  the  whole 
mass  ....  of  the  executive  power,  and  having  inva- 
riably and  forever  fixed  it  there."36  This  postulate, 
expressed  in  some  variety  of  ways,  sounded  a  keynote 
of  the  treatise.  The  Constitution  "placed  all  the  exec- 
utive authority  in  the  state  out  of  the  hands  of  those 
in  whom  the  people  trust."37  "The  English  govern- 
ment will  be  no  more  ....  when  the  representatives 
of  the  people  shall  begin  to  share  in  the  executive 
authority."38 

In  discussing  the  legislative  power  De  Lolme  stated 
clearly  that  the  representatives  of  the  people  in  Par- 

36  The  Constitution  of  England;  or,  an  account  of  the  English  Govern- 
ment.   By  J.  L.  De  Lolme.    A  new  ed.  with  Life  and  notes  by  John  Mac- 
Gregor,  M.  P.  (London:  Bohn,  1853),  p.  143. 

37  Ibid.,  p.  257. 

p.  316.     Cf.  pp.  147,  252,  309. 


30  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

liament  possessed  the  right  of  initiative  in  all  matters 
of  legislation.39  From  the  nation,  he  said,  the  Crown 
"  receives  the  force  with  which  it  governs  the  nation. 
Its  resources  are  official  energy,  and  not  compulsion- 
free  action,  and  not  fear."40  He  was  careful  to  admit 
near  the  close  of  his  work  that  in  England  there  had 
never  been  "more  than  one  assembly  that  could  supply 
the  wants  of  the  sovereign.  This  has  always  kept  him 
in  a  state,  not  of  a  seeming,  but  of  a  real  dependence 
on  the  representatives  of  the  people  for  his  necessary 
supplies ;  and  how  low  soever  the  liberty  of  the  subject 
may  at  particular  times  have  sunk,  they  have  always 
found  themselves  possessed  of  the  most  effectual 
means  of  restoring  it,  whenever  they  thought  proper 
so  to  do."41  Among  his  most  matured  considerations 
on  the  legislative  power  is  the  following  passage  taken 
from  the  concluding  chapter  of  the  work  in  its  final 
form.  "Two  circumstances  more  I  shall  mention 
here,"  he  wrote,  "as  peculiar  to  England:  namely, 
the  constant  attention  of  the  legislature  in  providing 
for  the  int^^ts  and  welfare  of  the  people,  and  the 
indulgence 4BV1  by  them  to  their  very  prejudices : 
advantag^pBRi  which  are,  no  doubt,  the  consequence 
of  the  general  spirit  that  animates  the  whole  English 
government,  but  are  also  particularly  owing  to  the 
circumstance  peculiar  to  it,  of  having  lodged  the  active 
part  of  legislation  in  the  hands  of  the  representatives 
of  the  nation,  and  committed  the  care  of  alleviating 

39  Constitution  of  England,  pp.  164,  167,  307. 

40  IUd.,  p.  300. 

41  Hid.,  pp.  327-328. 


THE  TERM  "CABINET"  IN  ENGLAND  31 

the  grievances  of  the  people  to  persons  who  either  feel 
them,  or  see  them  nearly,  and  whose  surest  path  to 
advancement  and  fame  is  to  be  active  in  finding 
remedies  for  them."42 

Quotations  can  give  only  the  barest  glimpse  of 
De  Lolme  's  views.  He  had  a  remarkable  appreciation 
of  that  flexibility  of  the  English  Constitution  in  gen- 
eral, and  certain  factors  in  particular  which  afforded 
a  balance  among  the  different  parts  of  the  mechanism. 
But  he  could  neither  fully  abandon  nor  forget  his 
postulate  as  to  the  indivisibility  of  the  executive, 
impressed  as  he  was  by  his  conviction  of  the  fixed 
and  dominant  place  of  the  King  in  the  English  scheme 
of  government.  He  was  consequently  quite  unable  to 
give  any  really  adequate  account  of  the  functions  of 
the  Ministry  or  the  Cabinet.  He  did  not  understand 
the  secret  of  their  relations  to  Parliament  on  the  one 
hand  or  to  the  King  on  the  other.  The  conception  of 
the  Prime  Minister,  as  to-day  we  understand  it,  dates 
only  from  the  epoch  of  the  younger  Pitt:43  De  Lolme 
could  not  of  course  have  had  it.  Nor  didAmhave  any 
notion  of  the  functions  of  party  gov<jMto«nt  in  oper- 
ating the  machine.  Yet  it  must  be  ^^Pbd  that  he 
was  not  simply  an  alert  student  oifliistory  and  law, 
but  that  he  was  likewise  an  observer  of  political  prac- 
tices. His  treatise  was  not  profound,  but  it  was  clever 


p.  338.  MacGregor,  editor  of  De  Lolme  in  1853,  was  moved 
to  give  in  connection  with  this  passage  a  note  on  the  Cabinet  as  a  very 
essential  element  in  the  government.  Pp.  364-367. 

43  Sir  William  E.  Anson,  Autobiography  and  Political  Correspondence 
of  Augustus  Henry  Third  Duke  of  Graf  ton,  K.  G.  (London:  1898), 
Introd.,  p.  xxx. 


32  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

and  inclusive  of  much  that  was  of  interest  to  statesmen. 
Altogether  it  remains  as  quite  the  most  remarkable 
exposition  of  the  English  government  which  was 
written  during  the  last  thirty  years  of  the  eighteenth 
century.44 

It  remained  for  a  statesman  peculiarly  accomplished 
in  the  theory  as  well  as  in  the  practices  of  govern- 
ment to  throw  light  on  the  true  functions  of  the  Min- 
istry in  the  eighteenth  century.  "  There  are  but  very 
few,"  wrote  Edmund  Burke,  "who  are  capable  of 
comparing  and  digesting  what  passes  before  their 
eyes  at  different  times  and  occasions,  so  as  to  form 
the  whole  into  a  distinct  system."45  Of  these  few 
Burke  may  certainly  be  reckoned  among  his  contem- 
poraries as  the  most  distinguished  one.  In  his  well- 
known  defence  of  the  Whig  system  of  party  govern- 
ment, a  pamphlet  entitled  Thoughts  on  the  Cause  of 
the  Present  Discontents  (1770),  Burke  discerned  some 
of  the  secrets  of  ministerial  functions.  While  the  pam- 
phlet was  primarily  an  attack  on  the  corrupt  system 
of  aristo^atic  and  court  influence,  a  system  which 

44  No  writer,  so  far  as  I  know,  has  ever  attended  to  the  fact  that  De 
Lolme's  book  wasMkhaped  during  the  years  from  1771  to  1784.     The 
author  could  hardly^iave  changed  his  original  views  without  essentially 
recasting   the   whole   work.      Yet   the   final   revision   indicates   that   De 
Lolme's    views    had    changed    in    some    respects.      He    was    inclined,    I 
believe,  in  his  last  edition  to  assign  a  more  vital  place  in  the  govern- 
mental machine  to  the  House  of  Commons.    One  is  tempted  to  conjecture 
that,  had  he  re-written  his  book  in  the  light  of  the  younger  Pitt's  long 
ministry  (1783-1801),  De  Lolme  might  have  produced  a  treatise  in  which 
the  crucial  position  of  the  Cabinet  Committee  would  have  been  suggested 
for  the  first  time.    De  Lolme  died  in  1806  or  1807.    The  best  brief  sketch 
of  his  work  and  career  is  to  be  found  in  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biog- 
raphy, XIV,  325  ff. 

45  WorTcs  (Boston:  1866),  I,  442. 


THE  TEEM  "CABINET"  IN  ENGLAND  33 

George  III  and  the  adherents  of  the  ideal  of  a  restored 
absolutism  tried  to  build  up  during  the  decade  after 
1760  and  for  some  years  following,  it  penetrated 
beneath  the  mere  surface  of  history,  for  it  afforded  a 
sketch  of  political  tendencies  and  practices  since  the 
revolution  of  1688. 

Briefly  summarized,  the  objects  which  the  King  and 
his  followers  sought  were  these:  A  court  separated 
from  the  Ministry;  a  powerful  body  of  adherents 
dependent  on  the  King's  personal  favor;  and  a  House 
of  Commons  alienated  from  the  Ministry.  As  means 
to  these  ends  it  was  necessary  to  exclude  men  of  com- 
manding influence  from  the  regular  Cabinet  of  Min- 
isters; furthermore  it  was  essential  to  nullify  as  far 
as  possible  the  regular  Cabinet  by  limiting  Ministers 
to  the  confines  of  their  regular  departments  and  to 
discredit  them  in  the  eyes  of  the  nation  either  for  their 
character  or  through  the  odium  which  they  might  incur 
for  approving  unpopular  acts;  finally,  by  means  of 
patronage  and  corruption,  to  put  the  majority  of  the 
House  of  Commons  at  the  disposal  of  the  court's 
agents.  The  nucleus  of  the  system  was  an  inner 
cabinet  of  "King's  Friends."46 

Such  objects  and  the  means  adopted  to  attain  such 
objects  were  entirely  out  of  accord  with  the  progres- 
sive tendencies  which  had  been  active  since  the  Eevo- 
lution.  By  slow  degrees  the  burden  of  public  affairs 
had  come  to  rest  on  the  Ministers.  The  Ministry, 

46  Edward  Jenks  has  summarized  these  points  clearly  in  his  volume 
on  the  evolution  of  the  cabinet  system  entitled  Parliamentary  England 
(1903),  p.  194. 


34  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

having  relieved  the  Crown  of  its  cares,  had  somewhat 
unconsciously  appropriated  much  of  the  Crown's 
authority,  and  was  being  held  responsible  by  the 
House  of  Commons  for  acts  which  formed  the  basis 
of  a  national  policy.  "It  must  be  remembered, ' ' 
wrote  Burke,  "that  since  the  Revolution  ....  the 
influence  of  the  Crown  had  been  always  employed  in 
supporting  the  ministers  of  state,  and  in  carrying  on 
the  public  business  according  to  their  opinions.''47 
George  III  had  endeavored  to  change  all  this.  "The 
power  of  the  Crown,  almost  dead  and  rotten  as  Pre- 
rogative, has  grown  up  anew  with  much  more  strength, 
and  far  less  odium,  under  the  name  of  Influence." 
To  this  influence,  especially  as  it  had  been  asserted 
in  the  House  of  Commons,  Burke  was  firmly  opposed. 
"The  House  of  Commons,"  he  declared,  "can  never 
be  a  control  on  other  parts  of  the  government  unless 
they  are  controlled  themselves  by  their  constituents; 
and  unless  these  constituents  possess  some  right  in 
the  choice  of  that  House,  which  it  is  not  in  the  power 
of  the  House  to  take  away. '  '49  In  any  event  there  must 
be,  according  to  Burke,  "but  one  administration;  and 
that  one  composed  of  those  who  recommend  them- 
selves to  their  sovereign  through  the  opinion  of 
their  country,  and  not  by  their  obsequiousness  to  a 
favorite."50  In  brief,  the  Cabinet  must  be  trusted  by 
the  nation  as  well  as  by  the  King. 

Burke  was  writing  no  treatise  on  the  British  Con- 

47  Works,  I,  460. 

48  Hid.,  p.  444. 
« Ibid.,  p.  503. 
so  IUd.,  p.  537. 


THE  TERM  "CABINET"  IN  ENGLAND  35 

stitution  such  as  De  Lolme  had  tried  to  make.  His 
pamphlet  was  no  text-book  from  which  men  of  the  day 
could  draw  precise  statements  about  the  workings  or 
the  structure  of  ministerial  government.  He  was 
imbued  with  the  passion  of  a  conservative  reformer, 
and  was  bent  upon  calling  attention  to  the  attempt  of 
the  King  to  put  the  false  and — as  Burke  conceived  it — 
the  dangerous  philosophy  of  Bolingbroke 's  Patriot 
King  into  effect.  Such  an  attempt  was  wholly  out  of 
accord  with  the  progressive  tendencies  that  had  pre- 
vailed since  the  Silent  Revolution,  and  was  likely  to 
interfere  with  the  political  life  of  the  entire  state. 
What  Burke  understood  better  perhaps  than  any  man 
of  his  time  was  this — that  no  formal  organization 
as  set  forth  in  a  constitution  or  in  the  law  can  ever 
quite  adequately  represent  the  political  life  of  the 
state.  "The  laws  reach  but  a  very  little  way,"  he 
wrote.  "Constitute  government  how  you  please, 
infinitely  the  greater  part  of  it  must  depend  upon  the 
exercise  of  the  powers  which  are  left  at  large  to  the 
prudence  and  uprightness  of  ministers  of  State.  Even 
all  the  use  and  potency  of  the  laws  depend  upon 
them."1  Such  a  sentiment,  taken  into  account  with 
the  reasoning  revealed  throughout  the  pamphlet,  may 
be  taken  to  indicate  some  perception  in  Burke 's  mind 
of  the  change  that  was  in  course  of  accomplishment 
throughout  the  eighteenth  century.  The  change 
amounted  to  a  slow  revolution.  Its  accomplishment 
through  the  custom  rather  than  the  law  of  the  Consti- 
tution centered  on  the  Cabinet  Committee.  Although 

61  Ibid.,  p.  470. 


36  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 


no  one  in  the  eighteenth  century  expressed  the  fact— 
indeed,  probably  no  one  could  have  expressed  it — the 
chief  function  of  that  committee  was  to  bring  about 
a  co-operation  among  the  different  forces  of  the  state 
without  interfering  with  the  legal  independence  of 
those  forces.52 


At  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century  party 
government  by  means  of  a  Cabinet  Committee  drawn 
from  the  two  Houses  of  Parliament  for  the  conduct  of 
the  business  of  the  state  was  an  accomplished  fact. 
It  is  true  that  through  the  Prime  Minister  the  Crown 
was  to  exercise  some  influence.  But  the  life  of  the 
Cabinet  had  come  to  be  dependent  on  the  maintenance 
of  the  confidence  of  the  House  of  Commons.  The 
Cabinet  had  drawn  to  itself  not  only  the  royal  power 
over  legislation,  but  also  many  of  the  most  important 
legislative  powers  of  Parliament.53  It  was  in  fact  the 
mainspring  of  government.  The  time  was  nearly  at 
hand  when  the  historic  processes  of  its  subtle  evolu- 
tion could  be  expounded  and  set  forth  with  some 
degree  of  detail  and  clarity. 

In  Hallam's  Constitutional  History  of  England 
from  the  Accession  of  Henry  VII  to  the  Death  of 
George  II — a  work  first  published  in  1827 — there  is  to 
be  found  a  brief  sketch  of  the  seventeenth-century 

52  A.  Lawrence  Lowell,  The  Government  of  England,  I,  53.     Cf.  Mor- 
ley,  Burke,  pp.  48  ff.     Lecky,  History  of  the  Eighteenth  Century  (Lon- 
don: 2d  ed.,  1883),  III,  181  ff. 

53  J.  Kedlich,  The  Procedure  of  the  House  of  Commons  (Eng.  trans., 
1908),  I,  Tiff. 


THE  TEEM  "CABINET"  IN  ENGLAND  37 

process  of  cleavage  between  the  Privy  Council  and  the 
Cabinet  Committee.54  As  far  as  it  goes,  this  sketch  is 
penetrating  and  careful.  It  was  not  written,  however, 
with  the  maturity  of  the  cabinet  system  in  view. 
Hallam  dealt  summarily  with  the  reigns  of  Anne  and 
the  first  two  Georges.  It  was  clearly  not  in  his  plan 
to  forecast  the  results  of  the  evolution  of  ministerial 
government,  although  some  of  the  essential  features 
in  the  process  were  presented  in  his  account  of 
William  III  and  his  three  successors.  In  truth  the 
system  of  party  government  as  well  as  the  significance 
of  the  historic  evolution  of  the  Cabinet  were  likely  to 
attract  more  attention  after  the  reform  measures  of 
1832  than  before. 

Macaulay  was  the  first  historian  who  wrote  appre- 
ciatively of  the  English  Cabinet.  In  the  first  volume 
of  The  History  of  England  from  the  Accession  of 
James  the  Second,  which  appeared  in  1848,  he  wrote : 
"Few  things  in  our  history  are  more  curious  than  the 
origin  and  growth  of  the  power  now  possessed  by 

the  Cabinet During  many  years  old-fashioned 

politicians  continued  to  regard  the  Cabinet  as  an 
unconstitutional  and  dangerous  board.  Nevertheless, 
it  constantly  became  more  and  more  important.  It 
at  length  drew  to  itself  the  chief  executive  power,  and 
has  now  been  regarded,  during  several  generations, 
as  an  essential  part  of  our  polity.'755  This  passage  was 
sufficiently  explicit  to  promise  well  for  a  careful  study 
of  cabinet  development  when  parliamentary  affairs  in 

54  Paris:  1827,  III,  466  ff. 

55 History  (Boston:  Houghton,  Mifflin,  1901),  I,  207-208. 


38  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

the  latter  part  of  1693  came  under  consideration. 
And  just  before  entering  upon  the  intricate  circum- 
stances of  1693-1696 — the  period  in  which  Macaulay 
discovered  the  first  definite  clue  to  a  ministry  united 
and  leading  in  good  order  a  majority  of  the  House 
of  Commons — he  remarked:  "No  writer  has  yet 
attempted  to  trace  the  progress  of  the  institution,  an 
institution  indispensable  to  the  harmonious  working 
of  our  other  institutions. ' >56  Had  he  been  able  to  carry 
out  the  extensive  plan  of  his  work  as  originally  he  had 
contemplated  it,  Macaulay  might  have  left  a  valuable 
record  of  the  historic  evolution  of  the  cabinet  system 
of  government  from  its  seventeenth-century  begin- 
nings to  its  nineteenth-century  maturity.  As  it  was, 
however,  his  work  remained  an  illuminating  narrative 
of  English  history  only  to  the  death  of  William  III 
in  1702.  So  far  as  he  concerned  himself  with  the 
Cabinet,  he  differentiated  skilfully  the  beginnings  of 
the  institution  from  the  complicated  elements  of  the 
seventeenth-century  process.  These  beginnings  he  set 
forth  in  the  light  of  the  maturity  of  the  system — a 
maturity  so  fully  appreciated  by  him,  that  the  reader 
to-day  will  find  it  difficult  to  discover  a  better  state- 
ment of  the  theory  of  cabinet  government  than  was 
written  by  Macaulay  in  the  twentieth  chapter  of  his 
History.™ 

The  year  1867  witnessed  the  appearance  of  three 
notable    contributions    to    the    literature    of    cabinet 

56  History,  IV,  543. 

57  Hid.,  IV,  542  ff .    Sir  Courtenay  Ilbert  cites  the  passage  in  the  pref- 
ace which  he  wrote  for  the  English  translation  of  Eedlich,  op.  cit.,  pp. 
xiii-xiv. 


THE  TEEM  "CABINET"  IN  ENGLAND  39 

history  and  to  the  elucidation  of  the  practices  of  par- 
liamentary government.  These  contributions  came 
from  three  writers  living  far  apart,  but  all  of  them 
residents  of  the  British  Empire.  The  writers  were 
Walter  Bagehot,  editor  of  the  Economist  (London) ; 
William  E.  Hearn,  Professor  of  Modern  History, 
Logic,  and  Political  Economy  in  the  University  of 
Melbourne ;  and  Alpheus  Todd,  Librarian  of  the  Par- 
liament of  Canada.  Although  Bagehot 's  The  English 
Constitution  was  published  in  1867,  it  had  first 
appeared,  it  should  be  said,  in  instalments  in  the  pages 
of  the  Fortnightly  Review,  beginning  in  the  first  issue 
of  that  periodical  of  May  15,  1865.  Hearn 's  volume 
was  entitled  The  Government  of  England:  its  Struc- 
ture and  its  Development.58  Todd,  eager  to  help 
toward  the  formation  of  the  confederation  of  the 
Canadian  provinces,  hurried  into  print  early  in  1867 
with  a  first  volume  entitled,  On  Parliamentary  Gov- 
ernment in  England:  its  Origin,  Development,  and 
Practical  Operation.  He  was  obliged  to  leave  as  part 
of  a  second  volume  the  history  of  the  origin,  organiza- 
tion, and  functions  of  the  Cabinet.  This  second 
volume  appeared  in  1869. 

Taken  together,  these  three  works  elucidated  both 
the  history  and  the  intricate  workings  of  cabinet  gov- 
ernment as  well  probably  as  it  was  possible  at  the  time 
to  do.  They  indicated,  moreover,  how  widespread 
and  vital  was  the  interest  that  had  been  aroused  in 
an  understanding  of  the  matured  system  of  the  Eng- 

58  Second  edition.  Longmans,  Green,  London:  1886.  Hearn  died  in 
1888. 


40  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

lish  form  of  government.  Behind  this  interest  was 
the  pressure  of  the  agitation  for  the  reform  of  Par- 
liament in  England — an  agitation  which  had  achieved 
its  first  success  in  1832  and  was  just  on  the  eve  of  its 
second;  and  the  new  governmental  problems  which 
were  pushing  for  solution  in  Canada,  Australia,  and 
other  British  colonies. 

Bagehot  was  not  interested  to  any  extent  in  the 
history  of  the  Cabinet  or  in  the  history  of  cabinet 
government.  He  was  bent  rather  upon  presenting 
vividly  the  workings  of  the  English  parliamentary 
system  as  actually  it  existed.  Hearn  was  something 
more  of  a  historian — inclined  to  sketch  or  to  trace  the 
course  of  practices  from  more  or  less  distant  origins, 
and  ever  ready  to  observe  comparisons  or  contrasts 
as  he  discovered  them  in  different  systems  of  polity. 
Yet  he  too  was  primarily  concerned  with  the  actual 
structure  and  activities  of  government.  Todd,  in  con- 
trast to  Bagehot  and  Hearn,  was  possessed  by  the 
instinct  of  the  antiquarian;  while  by  no  means  ignor- 
ing the  field  of  current  practices,  he  amassed  a  deal 
of  historic  lore,  and  so,  in  historical  matter,  he  supple- 
mented to  a  great  extent  the  work  of  his  two  contem- 
poraries. Versed  as  he  was  in  the  older  aspects  of 
his  theme,  he  lacked  the  judgment  of  the  trained 
scholar.  His  work  was  consequently  prolix  and  over- 
burdened with  details.  But  it  has  since  lent  itself 
readily  to  re-arrangement  and  condensation  under  the 
guiding  hand  of  the  late  Sir  Spencer  Walpole.59 

The  real  significance  of  Bagehot  and  Hearn  has  been 

59 Longmans,  Green,  2  vols.    London:  1892. 


THE  TERM  "CABINET"  IN  ENGLAND  41 

so  well  estimated  by  Mr.  A.  V.  Dicey,  late  Vinerian 
Professor  of  Law  at  Oxford,  that  I  venture  to  quote 
from  him  as  follows : 

No  author  of  modern  times  ....  has  done  so  much  to  eluci- 
date the  intricate  workings  of  English  government  as  Bage- 
hot.  His  English  Constitution  is  so  full  of  brightness,  origi- 
nality, and  wit,  that  few  students  notice  how  full  it  is  also 
of  knowledge,  of  wisdom,  and  of  insight.  The  slight  touches, 
for  example,  by  which  Bagehot  paints  the  reality  of  Cabinet 
government,  are  so  amusing  as  to  make  a  reader  forget  that 
Bagehot  was  the  first  author  who  explained  in  accordance 
with  actual  fact  the  true  nature  of  the  Cabinet  and  its  real 
relation  to  the  Crown  and  to  Parliament.  He  is,  in  short, 
one  of  those  rare  teachers  who  have  explained  intricate 
matters  with  such  complete  clearness,  as  to  make  the  public 
forget  that  what  is  now  so  clear  ever  needed  explanation. 

To  Hearn  he  pays  the  following  tribute : 

Professor  Hearn  ....  has  approached  English  institutions 
from  a  new  point  of  view,  and  has  looked  at  them  in  a  fresh 
light;  he  would  be  universally  recognized  among  us  as  one 
of  the  most  distinguished  and  ingenious  exponents  of  the 
mysteries  of  the  English  constitution,  had  it  not  been  for 
the  fact  that  he  made  his  fame  as  a  professor,  not  in  any 
of  the  seats  of  learning  in  the  United  Kingdom,  but  in  the 
University  of  Melbourne. 

"From  both  these  writers, "  adds  Dicey,  "we  expect  to 
learn,  and  do  learn  much,  but  ....  we  do  not  learn 
precisely  what  as  lawyers  we  are  in  search  of.  The 
truth  is  that  both  Bagehot  and  Professor  Hearn  deal 
and  mean  to  deal  mainly  with  political  understandings 
or  conventions  and  not  with  rules  of  law."60 

60  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Law  of  the  Constitution  (5th  ed., 
1897),  pp.  19-20. 


42  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

In  this  last  sentiment  Dicey  suggests  a  remarkable 
peculiarity  which  confronts  any  student  of  cabinet 
history.  The  Cabinet  Council  finds  no  recognition  in 
the  English  statute  book.  It  is  the  most  characteristic 
feature  in  a  system  of  government  that  developed  out 
of  many  practical  exigencies — exigencies  which  had  to 
be  met  by  a  series  of  conventions  or  political  under- 
standings. It  may  fairly  be  asked  whether  an  insti- 
tution so  evolved  could  be  described  completely  or 
thoroughly  in  any  work!  Probably  not.  At  any  rate, 
as  Mr.  Edward  Jenks  points  out,61  there  is  no  complete 
exposition  of  cabinet  government  in  existence.  Among 
scholars  who  have  written  since  Bagehot,  Hearn,  and 
Todd  wrote,  Sir  William  R.  Anson,  in  his  Law  and 
Custom  of  the  Constitution,  has  presented  a  clear 
survey  of  the  field  of  lore  on  the  Cabinet  and  has  given 
a  judicious  account  of  cabinet  organization  and  func- 
tions in  the  working  government  of  England.62 

It  is  no  part  of  my  aim  to  enter  into  the  details  of 
cabinet  government  or  history  in  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury. It  is  enough  to  have  pointed  out  that  not  until 
the  nineteenth  century  was  the  system  of  cabinet  gov- 
ernment sufficiently  well  understood  to  be  interpreted. 
American  statesmen  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  eight- 
eenth century  had,  it  may  be  assumed,  few  clear 
notions  regarding  the  English  Cabinet  Committee. 
Had  cabinet  government,  as  we  term  i£  to-day,  been 
far  enough  along  in  its  development  to  have  been 

61  Parliamentary  England,  p.  399. 

62  Anson  issued  the  first  edition  of  this  work  in  two  volumes  between 
1886-1892. 


THE  TERM  "CABINET"  IN  ENGLAND  43 

interpreted  lucidly  in  the  writings  of  English  states- 
men, it  is  conceivable  that  the  system  might  have 
exerted  an  influence  on  the  formation  of  the  structure 
of  the  American  government.  But  among  American 
writers  of  that  day  it  is  difficult  to  find  any  explicit 
references  to  the  functions  of  the  English  Cabinet.  In 
a  general  way  it  was  known  to  be  an  important  factor 
in  government.  But  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  its 
development  and  its  practical  workings  were  beyond 
most  minds  of  the  eighteenth  century. 


NOTES 


1.      BlBLIOGEAPHICAL  I 


The  most  available  guide  to  the  historic  usages  of 
the  term  "  cabinet "  is  the  New  English  Dictionary 
(Oxford:  1888  ff.)  s.  v.  cabinet.  In  the  first  edition  of 
Johnson's  Dictionary  (1755)  the  phrase  "Cabinet- 
council"  is  defined  as — 

A  council  held  in  a  private  manner,  with  unusual  privacy 
and  confidence. 

In  the  fourth  edition  (1773),  revised  by  the  author, 
Johnson  differentiates  another  definition  as  follows : 

2.  A  select  number  of  privy  counsellors  supposed  to  be 
particularly  trusted. 

This  he  bases  upon  a  quotation  from  the  poet,  Gay, 
which  was  printed  in  the  edition  of  1755  as  illustrative 
of  the  original  definition. 

Before  setting  down  the  first  usage  of  the  phrase 
"  cabinet-council "  which  I  could  find  in  the  State 
Papers  as  under  date  of  June  8,  1622,  I  examined 
some  twenty-two  volumes  of  the  Calendars  of  State 
Papers — Domestic  (London:  1858  ff.),  which  cover  the 
period  from  1603-1641.  Among  printed  sources  of  par- 
ticular value  to  the  student  of  usage  are:  The  Clarke 
Papers,  4  vols.,  edited  by  C.  H.  Firth  and  found  in  the 
Publications  of  the  Camden  Society  (1891ff.).  The 
Memoirs  of  Sir  John  Reresby ....  Written  by  Himself. 
Edited  by  James  J.  Cartwright  (London:  1875).  Miss 
H.  C.  Foxcroft's  The  Life  and  Letters  of  Sir  George 


THE  TERM  "CABINET"  IN  ENGLAND  45 

Savile  (2  vols.,  London:  1898)  gives  numerous  extracts 
from  hitherto  unprinted  sources,  and  contains  a  long 
chapter  (VI)  on  Temple's  scheme  of  a  Privy  Council. 
Anson's  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution  (3d  ed., 
vol.  II).  The  Crown,  Pts.  I  and  II  [1907-1908]  is  an 
available  and  excellent  guide  to  the  sources,  if  one  is 
studying  historic  usage.  My  chapter  was  written 
before  Anson's  third  edition  was  printed,  hence  I  have 
referred  to  the  second  edition  only,  although  the  third 
edition,  it  should  be  said,  has  some  new  materials  on 
the  historic  evolution  of  the  Cabinet. 

2.     FKOM  MACAULAY  TO  BAGEHOT  :  1848-1865 : 

Two  writers  during  these  years  helped  to  prepare 
the  way  for  a  better  appreciation  of  Bagehot,  Hearn, 
and  Todd.  Hearn  in  particular  acknowledged  his 
indebtedness  to  both  of  them.  In  1858  there  appeared 
an  essay  entitled  Parliamentary  Government  con- 
sidered with  reference  to  a  reform  of  Parliament 
(London:  Bentley),  written  by  the  third  Earl  Grey 
( 1802-1894) .  This  essay  contained  several  illuminating 
passages  on  the  historic  development  of  the  Cabinet 
and  the  practical  significance  of  the  ministerial  organi- 
zation. A  London  barrister,  Homersham  Cox,  printed 
in  1854  a  work  entitled  The  British  Commonwealth:  or 
a  commentary  on  the  Institutions  and  Principles  of 
British  ^Government  (London:  Longmans).  This 
touched  on  the  Cabinet  and  gave  a  brief  account  of  the 
secretariat.  It  was  followed  by  a  much  more  compre- 
hensive and  important  work  by  the  same  author  in 
1863,  The  Institutions  of  the  English  Government,  etc. 


46  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Book  I  contained  a  chapter  on  '  *  The  Privy  Council  and 
the  Cabinet  Council"  (pp.  222-259);  Book  III  com- 
prised  a  series  of  chapters  on  "Administrative  Govern- 
ment" (pp.  589  ff.). 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  BASIS  OF  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET:    1775-1789 

WHEN  Congress  in  1789  provided  by  law  for  the 
establishment  of  three  administrative  Secre- 
taryships and  an  officer  to  be  known  as  the  Attorney- 
General,  it  was  arranging  machinery  by  means  of 
which  the  chief  magistrate  might  surround  himself 
with  four  expert  assistants,  men  qualified  in  foreign 
affairs,  in  finance,  in  army  organization,  and  in  the 
law.  Such  speakers  as  Fisher  Ames,  Madison,  Vining, 
Sedgwick,  and  Boudinot  voiced  this  truth  in  the 
debates  on  the  organization  of  departments.1  But  no 
man  of  the  time  put  the  thought  more  directly  than 
Washington  when,  in  the  course  of  a  letter  to  the 
Count  de  Mou^tier  under  date  of  May  25,  1789,  he 
wrote : i  i  The  impossibility  that  one  man  should  be  able 
to  perform  all  the  great  business  of  the  state  I  take 
to  have  been  the  reason  for  instituting  th^  great 
departments,  and  appointing  officers  therein,  to  assist 
the  supreme  magistrate  in  discharging  the  duties  of 
his  trust.  "2  A  similar  thought  was  long  afterward 
expressed  by  Jefferson  when,  in  1823,  he  said  to  a 
friend  that  we  had  "  fallen  on  the  happiest  of  all  modes 
of  constituting  the  executive,  that  of  easing  and  aiding 

1  The  debates  on  the  subject  of  the  organization  of  the  departments 
opened  in  the  House  of  Kepresentatives  on  May  19,  1789.     Annals  of 
Congress,  I,  383  ff.    For  the  idea  that  the  principal  officers  were  intended 
to  be  the  President's  assistants,  see  especially  Annals,  I,  492,  516,  531, 
542,  548,  549. 

2  The  Writings  of  George  Washington,  ed.  W.  C.  Ford,  XI,  397-398. 


48  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

our  President,  by  permitting  him  to  choose  Secretaries 
of  State,  of  finance,  of  war,  and  of  the  navy,  with 
whom  he  may  advise,  either  separately  or  all  together, 
and  remedy  their  decisions  by  adopting  or  controlling 
their  opinions  at  his  discretion."3  The  advisory  func- 
tion of  the  principal  officers  was  prominent  in  Jeffer- 
son's thought. 

An  examination  of  historic  processes  that  had  been 
at  work  for  some  years  before  1789  may  help  to 
explain  the  establishments  arranged  for  and  will  make 
the  association  of  the  principal  officers  with  the  Presi- 
dent seem  not  only  natural  but  in  some  degree  to  have 
been  foreordained. 


While  John  Adams  was  on  his  way  to  Philadelphia 
as  a  delegate  in  1774  to  the  Continental  Congress,  he 
heard  certain  apprehensive  comments  over  the  prob- 
able deficiency  of  power  in  the  coming  Congress.  The 
Congress,  it  was  said,  "will  be  like  a  legislative  with- 
out an  executive.  "*  It  would  be  wanting  in  adequate 
means  to  enforce  obedience  to  its  laws  or  to  direct  a 
policy.  And  this  in  fact  proved  to  be  the  case. 

There  was  no  plan  of  executive  organization  that 
met  the  approval  of  Congress  when  the  Articles  of 
Confederation  were  under  consideration.  These 
Articles  contained  no  provision,  consequently,  for 
an  executive.  There  was,  to  be  sure,  a  presiding 
officer  during  regular  sessions,  president  in  name 

3  The  Writings  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  ed.  H.  A.  Washington,  VII,  321. 

4  Works  of  John  Adams,  ed.  C.  F.  Adams,  II,  344. 


THE  BASIS  OF  THE  CABINET  49 

alone.  There  was  also  an  anomalous  Committee  of 
the  States  which  was  to  act  during  the  recess  of  Con- 
gress.5 An  attempt  to  get  the  Committee  to  work  in 
the  summer  of  1784  proved  a  complete  failure.6 
Shortly  before  this  significant  experience,  Thomas 
Jefferson  left  Congress,  having  been  appointed  pleni- 
potentiary to  France.  He  liked  to  recall  several  years 
later  that  he  "  of  ten  proposed, "  when  in  the  Conti- 
nental Congress,  that  all  executive  business  be  placed 
in  the  hands  either  of  the  Committee  of  the  States  or 
of  another  similar  committee  specially  appointed  by 
the  Congress.  He  felt  sure  that  one  of  the  most  funda- 
mental needs  of  the  government  of  the  Confederation 
was  the  separation  of  the  executive  from  the  two  other 
departments,  legislative  and  judiciary.  Jefferson's 
theory  was  no  doubt  sound.  He  watched  with  distinct 
satisfaction  any  evidence  that  he  could  obtain  during 
1786-1787,  while  he  was  still  residing  in  France,  of  its 
recognition  in  the  United  States,  and  particularly  of 
its  recognition  by  the  men  influential  in  altering  the 
methods  and  form  of  government.7 

Without  doubt  the  Articles  reflected  a  pretty  wide- 
spread fear,  prevalent  especially  near  the  opening  of 
the  Eevolution,  of  the  single  executive  placed  over  con- 
tinental concerns.  The  nation  was  resolved  that  it 
would  submit  on  no  account  to  a  despot,  called  by  what- 
ever name.  A  single-chambered  body  of  delegates 
might,  after  the  manner  of  an  estates-general,  serve 

5  Articles  of  Confederation,  ix,  x. 

6  Journals  of  Congress,  IX,  1-29  following  the  Index. 

7  Documentary  History  of  the  Constitution,  IV,  43,  217,  243,  249-250, 
278,  303,  314,  348,  369,  411. 


50  TEE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

the  purposes  of  a  central  form  of  government.  The 
enforcement  and  administration  of  laws  could  be 
safely  left  to  the  states  and  to  the  state  governors  or 
presidents. 

The  administrative  history  of  the  government  from 
1775  to  1789  was  one  long  commentary  upon  the  weak- 
ness of  a  national  organization  with  only  a  single- 
chambered  Congress  at  its  head.  The  Congress 
attempted  to  control  an  organization  that  proved 
altogether  difficult  to  manage.  Lack  of  power  at  the 
head  made  the  organization  inefficient — so  much  so 
that  at  times  it  was  on  the  point  of  disintegration. 
The  exigencies  of  the  war  tended  inevitably  to  develop 
a  series  of  committees,  boards,  and  other  agencies — 
an  administrative  organization  that  amounted  to  an 
executive  department  co-ordinate  with  the  legislative. 
These  exigencies  forced  into  the  foreground  the  impor- 
tance and  necessity,  if  not  the  general  trustworthiness, 
of  individual  leadership,  an  idea  that  Robert  Morris 
laid  particular  stress  upon  very  early  in  the  period 
of  the  Revolution.8 

In  August,  1780,  a  meeting  at  Boston  attended  by 
delegates  from  the  New  England  states  voiced  a  view 
that  was  becoming  general.  At  this  meeting  it  was 
urged  that  the  "  national  Concerns  of  the  United 
States  be  under  the  Superintendency  and  Direction  of 
one  supreme  Head."'  On  January  29,  1781,  James 

8  December  16,  1776.     P.  Force,  American  Archives,  5th  series,  III, 
1241. 

9  Proceedings  of  a  Convention  of  Delegates  from  several  of  the  New- 
England  States,  Held  at  Boston,  August  3-9,  1780.     Ed.  F.  B.  Hough 
(Albany:  1867)7 'p.  50. 


THE  BASIS  OF  THE  CABINET  51 

Duane  wrote  to  Washington,  saying  that  "the  people 
....  perceive  the  want  of  a  common  head  to  draw 
forth  in  some  just  proportion  the  resources  of  the 
several  branches  of  the  federal  union.  "10  Congress 
was  coming  to  be  regarded,  especially  by  the  army,  as 
a  very  impotent  body.  And  the  impression  occasion- 
ally gained  utterance  that  George  Washington  might 
wisely  be  made  king.11  Indeed,  one  bold  observer  pro- 
posed in  a  private  letter  a  plan  looking  toward  some 
such  consummation:  he  regarded  as  desirable  such  a 
change  of  government  as  would  result  in — 

two  distinct  and  well-organized  bodies:  legislative  and  execu- 
tive; whose  powers  and  capacities  shall  be  equal  to  the  task 
of  managing  the  unruly  affairs  of  America.  To  effect  this 
....  at  the  head  of  the  last  branch  there  must  be  a  great 
and  fearful  executive  officer  to  do  anything;  the  power  of 
that  officer  must  be  greater  than  that  which  is  hereditary  in 
the  house  of  Orange,  and  as  nearly  like  the  head  of  that  power 
we  are  contending  with  as  can  well  be  imagined,  the  name 
only  excepted M 

This  view  which  was  conceived  and  written  early  in 
1783  was  no  doubt  somewhat  extremely  expressed,  for 
it  was  not  intended  for  publication.  Yet  the  general 
truth  is  there — a  truth  which  Noah  Webster  stated 
fairly  in  his  way  not  many  months  later.  "Let  the 
power  of  the  whole, ' '  he  said,  '  '  be  brought  to  a  single 

10  Bancroft,  History  of  the  Formation  of  the  Constitution  (4th  ed., 
1884),  I,  283. 

11 L.  C.  Hatch,  The  Administration  of  the  American  Revolutionary 
Army  (1904),  pp.  161  ff. 

12  Bancroft,  op.  cit.,  I,  299. 


52  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

point  and  vested  in  a  single  person,  and  the  execution 

of  laws  will  be  vigorous  and  decisive ": 

It  was  not  difficult  for  the  Philadelphia  Convention 
in  1787  to  determine  at  least  on  the  form  of  executive. 
It  should  be  a  single  one  such  as  had  been  already 
widely  advocated  and  was  here  and  there  forcibly 
illustrated  in  the  state  governor  and  his  predecessor, 
the  colonial  governor. 


II 


Meantime  the  principle  of  one-man  power  had 
already  won  its  way  to  significant  results  in  the  prac- 
tices of  government,  for  early  in  1781  Congress  passed 
several  ordinances  for  the  purpose  of  establishing 
four  heads  of  departments,  single  officers  who  should 
assume  direction  over  the  organizations  of  foreign 
affairs,  war,  finance,  and  marine.14 

For  months  there  had  been  discussions  in  and  out 
of  Congress  with  reference  to  some  such  arrangement. 
On  August  29,  1780,  Congress  approved  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  committee  of  five,  Eobert  R.  Livingston 
chairman,  ' i  to  report  a  plan  for  the  revision  and  new 
arrangement    of    the    civil    executive    departments/' 
Early  in  September,  Hamilton  formulated  his  now 
famous  plan  of  administrative  organization  which  he 
communicated  to  James  Duane.15    The  subject  of  the 
proper  administration  of  the  finances  was  most  f re- 
is  Sketches  of  American  Policy  (Hartford:  1785),  p.  7. 
14  Journals  of  Congress,  January  10,  1781;  February  7,  etc. 
is  Works  of  Alexander  Hamilton  (ed.  Lodge),  I,  226  ff. 


THE  BASIS  OF  THE  CABINET  53 

quently  in  view.  By  November  even  Congress  was 
convinced  that  there  must  be  i  l  a  single  officer  account- 
able to  Congress ' n6  for  the  finances.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  principle  of  holding  one  man  respon- 
sible for  the  great  administrative  tasks  was  approved 
by  most  of  the  more  liberal  and  constructive  states- 
men, such  men  for  examples  as  Jay,  Washington,  the 
two  Morrises,  and  Alexander  Hamilton.  And  long 
before  February,  1781,  when  Congress  passed  the 
ordinances,  men  were  considering  the  problem  of 
selecting  persons  fitted  for  the  headships.  Just  after 
the  first  choice  had  been  made,  Washington  received 
word  from  one  of  the  interested  workers  on  behalf  of 
the  new  project  to  this  effect:  "We  are,"  declared  his 
correspondent,  "about  appointing  the  officers  who  are 
to  be  at  the  head  of  our  great  departments.  Yesterday 
[February  20]  Mr.  Morris,  without  a  vote  against 
him  ....  was  chosen  financier.  I  cannot  say  he  will 
accept,  but  have  some  hopes  he  will.  Our  finances 
want  a  Necker  to  arrange  and  reform  them.  Morris 
is,  I  believe,  the  best  qualified  of  any  our  country 
affords  for  the  arduous  undertaking.  We  shall  in  a 
day  or  two  appoint  the  officers  for  the  foreign  affairs 
and  the  marine.  I  wish  we  had  men  in  these  offices  as 
well  qualified  to  execute  them  as  Morris  in  the 
Treasury.  "17 

The  titles  of  the  proposed  new  officials  were  to  be. 
Secretary   for  Foreign   Affairs — altered  in   1782   to 

16  Journals,  November  24,  1780. 

17 Letters  of  Joseph  Jones.     1777-1787.    Ed.  W.  C.  Ford  (1889),  pp. 
69-70.     Letter  dated  Philadelphia,  February  21. 


54  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Secretary  to  the  United  States  of  America  for  the 
Department  of  Foreign  Affairs18 — Superintendent  of 
Finance,  Secretary  at  War,  and  Secretary  of  Marine. 
Morris  accepted  the  Superintendency  in  May,  1781. 
Before  the  year  was  out  two  Secretaries  had  likewise 
been  appointed,  Robert  R.  Livingston  taking  the  head- 
ship of  foreign  affairs  in  September,  and  Benjamin 
Lincoln  that  of  the  war  organization  somewhat  later 
in  the  autumn.19 

The  plan  of  placing  administrative  work  under  the 
responsibility  of  single  heads  marked  the  basis  of 
administrative  organization  as  we  know  it  to-day.  It 
is  true,  however,  that  the  plan  was  not  consistently 
maintained  in  practice  through  the  trying  years  of  the 
Confederation,  nor  was  it  altogether  successful,  for  it 
was  partly  dependent  upon  a  plodding  and  limping 
Congress,  and  partly  upon  diverse  personalities,  only 
two  of  whom  proved  to  be  men  of  first-rate  adminis- 
trative ability.  Congress  appointed  Major-General 
McDougall  to  the  Marine  Secretaryship  on  February 
27,  but  McDougall  made  certain  conditions  to  the 
appointment  which  Congress  was  disinclined  to  accept, 
and  accordingly  the  appointment  was  not  arranged 
for.  The  work  of  the  Marine  Department  was  merged 
in  the  following  September  in  that  of  the  department 

is  Secret  Journals  of  Congress,  II,  580. 

w  Morris  accepted  his  appointment  on  May  14,  taking  the  oath  of 
office  late  in  the  following  June.  H.  B.  Learned  in  American  Historical 
Review,  April,  1905,  p.  565.  Livingston  was  appointed  by  Congress  on 
August  10  and  accepted  the  following  September  23.  G.  Hunt  in  Ameri- 
can Journal  of  International  Law  (October,  1907),  p.  876.  Lincoln  was 
appointed  late  in  October.  Jameson's  Essays,  p.  153. 


THE  BASIS  OF  THE  CABINET  55 

directed  by  Robert  Morris.20  The  finances  themselves 
after  Morris's  resignation  and  retirement  in  the 
autumn  of  1784  were  soon  directed  by  a  board  of  three 
commissioners,  a  recurrence  to  Revolutionary  prac- 
tices. Only  the  two  Departments  of  Foreign  Affairs 
and  War  remained  to  1789  under  single  heads.21  There 
is  no  evidence  that  any  official  analogous  to  the  later 
federal  Attorney-General  was  contemplated  at  this 
time. 

The  new  organization  was  a  natural  and  for  the  most 
part  an  indigenous  development  out  of  the  circum- 
stances of  the  Revolution.    We  were  creating  rather 
than    copying    an    administrative    system.      In    the 
arrangements  of  1781  there  is  no  clear  evidence  of 
colonial  precedents.    Yet  it  seems  only  fair  to  assume 
that  the  statesmen  of  the  Revolution  could  not  have 
escaped  the  influence  of  British  traditions  and  forms, 
for  the  British  secretariat  had  been  maturing  since 
the  later  days  of  the  Tudors.    The  very  titles  of  some^) 
of  the  offices  suggest  foreign  influence.    "Secretary  at  \ 
War ' '  was  a  title  that  went  back  at  least  to  the  period    V 
of  Charles  II.22     "Superintendent  of  Finance "  was 
almost  certainly  adapted  from  the  old  French  title  of      ( 
the  Due  de  Sully,  superintendant  des  finances.™     It 
seems  likely  that  French  influence  before  1781  aided 

20  Journals  of  Congress,  February  27,  March  30,  1781.    C.  O.  Paullin, 
The  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution  (1906),  pp.  218-226. 

21  Journals  of  Congress,  VII-XIII,  passim,  where  the  whole  trend  of 
changes  may  be  easily  followed  by  reliance  on  the  indexes. 

22  Anson,  Law  and  Custom,  Pt.  II,  378. 

23  '  <  Origin  of  the  Title  Superintendent  of  Finance  "  by  H.  B.  Learned 
in  American  Historical  Review,  April,  1905,  X,  565-573. 


56  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

us  in  the  general  direction  toward  which  we  were 
tending,  for  the  principle  of  one-man  power  was  prob- 
ably more  satisfactorily  matured  in  the  administrative 
organization  of  France  than  in  that  of  any  country. 
Hamilton,  who  took  a  pronounced  interest  in  advocat- 
ing the  principle  in  America,  remarked  regarding  the 
proposed  heads  of  departments  that  "these  officers 
should  have  nearly  the  same  powers  and  functions  as 
those  in  France  analogous  to  them."24  It  should  not 
be  forgotten  in  this  connection  that  Congress  had  not 
only  been  willing,  but  had  actually  taken  steps  to  look 
abroad  for  suggestions  at  a  time  when  it  was  most 
puzzled  about  proper  and  effective  methods  of  admin- 
istration. The  very  year  of  the  French  alliance 
(1778)  they  made  a  direct  appeal  to  Dr.  Richard  Price, 
the  well-known  English  writer  on  finance  and  a  warm 
friend  to  the  Eevolutionary  cause,  to  come  to  America 
and  help  to  reorganize  the  continental  finances.25  Early 
in  the  following  year  Congress  resolved  to  urge  its 
European  agents  to  inquire  into  any  methods  known 
abroad  of  administering  departments  of  war,  treasury, 
naval  and  other  offices.26 

The  personnel  of  the  new  administrative  system 
afforded  during  the  years  from  1781  to  1789  at  least 
two  very  impressive  examples  of  men  of  marked 
executive  abilities.27  While  Robert  Morris  and  John 

24  Works  (ed.  H.  C.  Lodge),  I,  226. 

25  Wharton,  Revolutionary  Diplomatic  Correspondence,  II,  474,  756, 
853. 

26  Secret  Journals  of  Congress,  II,  130  (January  25,  1779). 

27  E.  E.  Livingston  at  the  head  of  foreign  affairs  (1781-1783)  was  an 
able  man.    As  first  incumbent  of  the  position,  he  had  much  to  do  in  es- 


THE  BASIS  OF  THE  CABINET  57 

Jay  were  technically  subject  to  Congress,  in  fact  were 
the  administrative  officials  of  that  body,  they  probably 
exercised  large  if  not  directive  influence  over  it. 
Robert  Morris  was  all  but  alone  in  his  knowledge  of 
the  problems  of  national  finance.  It  was  easy  to  char- 
acterize him  as  a  "pecuniary  dictator "  8  with  refer- 
ence to  Congress  as  early  as  the  autumn  of  1781. 
Although  he  faced  bitter  opposition  both  in  and  out- 
side that  body,  there  is  no  doubt  that  through  his 
energy,  tact,  and  careful  planning  the  final  triumph  of 
the  Eevolutionary  cause  was  largely  due.29  Morris 
retired  from  office  on  November  1,  1784.  In  the  fol- 
lowing December,  rather  more  than  a  month  after 
Morris's  retirement,  John  Jay  undertook  the  task  of 
Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs.  He  raised  the  office  from 
what  it  had  been,  a  clerkship  under  congressional 
direction,  to  the  most  dignified  and  influential  post  in 
the  Confederation.  Jay,  like  his  predecessor  Living- 
ston, was  privileged  to  appear  on  the  floor  of  Congress, 
and  occasionally  spoke  before  Congress  in  an  advisory 
capacity.30  About  a  year  after  Jay's  accession  to  the 
post,  Otto,  French  charge  d'affaires,  remarked  in  a 
letter  to  Vergennes  that  "Mr.  Jay  especially  has 

tablishing  practices  and  was  much  hampered  by  an  overwatchful  Con- 
gress. Madison  considered  him  indifferent  to  the  place.  Madison 's 
Writings  (ed.  Hunt),  I,  141.  For  estimates  of  Livingston  see  Hunt, 
American  Journal  of  International  Law  (October,  1907),  pp.  876  ff. 
Wharton,  op.  cit.,  I,  596-597. 

28  W.  B.  Eeed,  Life  and  Correspondence  of  Joseph  Seed,  II,  296. 

29  Wharton,  op.  cit.,  I,  289,  600. 

so  Secret  Journals,  IV,  109,  110.  W.  Jay,  The  Life  of  John  Jay,  I, 
186,  202,  236-237,  241-242.  J.  S.  Jenkins,  Lives  of  the  Governors 
(1851),  p.  114.  Jameson,  Essays,  pp.  164  ff. 


58  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

acquired  a  peculiar  ascendency  over  the  members  of 
Congress.  All  important  business  passes  through  his 
hands. ' ' 31  Early  in  1786  Otto  spoke  once  more  of  the 
increasing  political  importance  of  the  American  Secre- 
tary, saying:  "Congress  seems  to  me  to  be  guided 

only  by  his  directions Congress  ....  does  not 

perceive  that  it  ceases  to  be  anything  more  than  the 

organ  of  its  chief  minister He  inspires  the 

majority  of  the  resolutions  of  Congress. " 32 

Otto  expressed  some  admiration  for  the  whole  sys- 
tem of  administration  as  he  had  observed  it.  He  went 
so  far  as  to  say  in  February,  1787,  that  "a  regular 
system  has  been  introduced  into  all  the  branches  of 

the  general  administration The  departments  of 

foreign  affairs,  of  war,  of  finances,  are  in  the  hands  of 
trusty  and  capable  men,  whose  integrity,  wisdom,  and 
circumspection  will  stand  every  test.  Secrecy  is  much 

better  observed  than  during  the  war But  this 

fine  structure, "  he  concluded,  "is,  unfortunately,  use- 
less on  account  of  the  exhaustion  of  the  treasury/'3' 

Whatever  the  theory  of  the  secretarial  positions  was 
at  the  time  of  their  creation  in  1781,  the  conditions  as 
time  elapsed,  notably  the  fact  that  Congress  was  an 
inefficient  and  diminishing  body,  inevitably  forced  the 
direction  of  affairs  on  the  capable  administrative 
officers.  And  it  seems  fair  to  assume,  although  the 
evidence  is  scanty,  that  John  Jay  became  really  what 
may  be  called  the  chief  executive  of  the  Confederation. 

31  Bancroft,  Formation  of  the  Constitution,  I,  474.   December  25, 1785. 
32/bwZ.,  I,  479.     January  10,  1786. 
S3 /bid.,  II,  411.    February  10,  1787. 


THE  BASIS  OF  THE  CABINET  59 

Indeed,  with  Robert  Morris  as  director  of  the  conti- 
nental finances  from  June,  1781,  to  November,  1784, 
succeeded  in  the  following  December  by  Jay  as  head 
of  the  country's  foreign  affairs  until  March,  1790,  the 
idea  of  an  executive  chief  supported  by  administrative 
assistants  untrammeled  by  too  intimate  and  control- 
ling a  connection  with  Congress  must,  it  would  seem, 
have  gained  strength,  for  that  idea  had  received  in  the 
almost  continuous  services  of  Morris  and  Jay  clear 
and  effective  illustration.  When  arrangements  for  a 
change  of  government  under  the  new  Constitution 
were  under  way  in  1788  and  1789,  Jay,  Morris,  and 
Knox — the  latter  Secretary  at  War  since  March,  1785 
—were  naturally  considered  for  high  places  in  the 
administrative  work.34 


Ill 


Side  by  side  with  the  practice  of  administration 
under  great  officers  or  heads  of  departments  and  apt 
to  be  associated  with  the  expression  of  a  conviction  of 
the  need  of  an  executive  chief,  there  appeared  from 
1781  onwards  various  suggestions  for  combining  prin- 
cipal officers  of  administration  into  a  council. 

As  early  as  February  10, 1781,  just  three  days  after 
Congress  had  arranged  by  ordinances  for  the  new  sec- 
retariat, an  anonymous  writer  in  the  Pennsylvania 
Packet,  expressing  satisfaction  that  management  by 
boards  was  to  be  superseded,  commented  on  the  new 

34  Madison,  Writings  (ed.  Hunt),  V,  303.  Letter  of  November  5, 
1788.  Elbridge  Gerry  in  Annals  of  Congress,  May  20,  1789. 


60  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

plan  as  follows:  " Congress, "  lie  said  in  his  quaint 
fashion,  "hath  determined  on  a  measure  which  will 
give  life  and  energy  to  our  proceedings,  both  in  civil 
and  military  line  ....  that  of  putting  a  man  at  the 

head  of  each  of  the  great  departments As  the 

persons  who  shall  fill  those  offices  have  the  fullest 
information  respecting  all  our  affairs,  they  may  render 
the  public  essential  services  and  facilitate  the  business 
of  Congress,  if  they  were  frequently  to  meet  together 
to  deliberate  on  them,  and  then  to  lay  their  opinions 
and  plans  before  Congress.  Much  therefore  will 
depend  on  their  having  a  good  understanding  and 

friendly  intercourse  among  themselves "    Two 

months  later,  on  April  11,  a  similar  suggestion  was 
thrown  out  by  a  nameless  writer  in  the  Pennsylvania 
Gazette.  Eemarking  on  the  importance  of  the  new 
system,  aware  of  the  large  administrative  duties  likely 
to  devolve  upon  the  occupants  of  the  new  positions, 
the  writer  was  convinced  that  these  officers  "might, 
if  they  should  be  men  of  general  knowledge  beyond  the 
line  in  which  they  act,  be  extremely  useful  in  another 
capacity;  for,  possessing  among  themselves  ample 
knowledge  of  everything  relative  to  public  affairs,  they 
might  meet  frequently  together,  consult  what  ought 
to  be  done,  and  submit  their  sentiment  to  Congress. 
By  this  means  much  time  and  labor  would  be  saved  to 
Congress;  and  the  public  business  would  be  carried 

on  with  regularity,  vigor  and  expedition " 

For  the  first  time  in  American  history  a  combi- 
nation of  department  heads  as  an  advisory  council  to 
Congress  could  be  suggested  as  -sc  possibility  in  the 


THE  BASIS  OF  THE  CABINET  61 

• 

spring  of  1781.  The  two  foregoing  plans  were  prob- 
ably made  casually  and  without  any  reference  to  prece- 
dent, colonial  or  British.  They  came  naturally  from 
the  circumstances  of  the  American  continental  situa- 
tion. Both  writers  perceived  that  a  council  of  well- 
informed  and  sagacious  administrative  officers  could 
do  something  toward  vitalizing  and  perhaps  enforcing 
a  congressional  policy.  The  weakness  or  strength  of 
any  such  body  would  depend  upon  the  degree  of  its 
subordination  to  Congress  and  the  mutual  relations 
existing  between  it  and  Congress.  To  have  given  such 
a  body  of  administrators  a  status  around  an  executive 
chief,  himself  relatively  free  from  congressional  con- 
trol, would  have  resulted  in  a  combination  very  much 
akin  to  the  later  President  and  Cabinet. 

The  maturing  of  thought  is  evident  in  a  more  defi- 
nite proposal  that  was  formulated  about  two  years 
later.  Pelatiah  Webster,  a  merchant,  resident  in  Phil- 
adelphia and  a  writer  of  some  influence,  printed  a 
small  pamphlet  early  in  1783  which  was  in  substance 
a  series  of  suggestions  rather  than  a  consistent  plan 
for  the  alteration  and  improvement  of  the  form  of 
government  of  the  Confederation.  Webster  believed 
in  a  bi-cameral  Congress  which  should  consist  of  a 
Senate  and  a  Commons.  He  assumed  that  there  would 
be  several  heads  of  departments  which  he  termed 
"  great  ministers  of  state. "  With  these  ministers  he 
would  have  associated  certain  judicial  officers.  '  *  These 
•ministers,"  he  remarked,  "will  of  course  have  the  best 
information,  and  most  perfect  knowledge,  of  the  state 
of  the  Nation,  as  far  as  it  relates  to  their  several 


62  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

departments,  and  will  of  course  be  able  to  give  the  best 

information  to  Congress >>35    He  was  inclined  to 

recommend  that  the  ministers  give  their  information 
"in  writing,"  but  he  perceived  that  Congress  might 
choose  to  admit  the  ministers  into  their  sessions  for 
the  purpose  of  granting  them  a  hearing  in  debate, 
though  not  the  right  of  voting.  Herein  the  plan  was 
clearly  suggestive  of  British  practices.  That  the  min- 
isters should  form  a  distinctive  council  was  made  plain 
in  the  following  passage: 

The  aforesaid  great  ministers  of  state  shall  compose  a 
Council  of  State,  to  whose  number  Congress  may  add  three 
others,  viz.,  one  from  New-England,  one  from  the  middle 
States,  and  one  from  the  southern  States,  one  of  which  to  be 
appointed  President  by  Congress;  to  all  of  whom  shall  be 
committed  the  supreme  executive  authority  of  the  States 
....  who  shall  superintend  all  the  executive  departments, 
and  appoint  all  executive  officers.36 

Webster  was  groping  not  without  skill  and  regard 
to  the  existing  government  towards  an  improved  form 
of  executive  organization.  His  President  could  not 
have  been  independent  in  any  true  sense,  for  he  was 
too  intimately  associated  with  Congress.  In  fact  he 
was  the  creation  of  Congress.37  The  Council  likewise 
must  have  been  controlled  and  trammeled  by  Congress. 
But  the  real  significance  of  the  plan  should  be  clearly 
borne  in  mind.  In  proposing  to  combine  President 

35  A  Dissertation  on  the  Political  Union  and  Constitution  of  the  Thir- 
teen United  States  of  North- America,  etc.  I  quote  from  the  reprint  which 
is  to  be  found  in  Webster's  Political  Essays  (Philadelphia:  1791),  omit- 
ting the  old-fashioned  italics,  p.  213. 

36/6»d.,  p.  221. 

d.,  pp.  220,  221. 


THE  BASIS  OF  THE  CABINET  63 

and  heads  of  departments  into  a  "Council  of  State " 
(employing  a  well-known  phrase)  and  keeping  in  view 
the  character  of  the  body  as  representing  the  geo- 
graphical sections  of  the  country,  Pelatiah  Webster 
hit  upon  the  clearest  prototype  that  probably  can  be 
discovered  for  the  later  Cabinet  Council.  To  Web- 
ster's President  and  Council  was  to  be  committed 
"the  supreme  executive  authority  of  the  States/' 

The  further  maturing  of  the  conciliar  idea  in  rela- 
tion to  the  formation  of  the  Constitution  and  the 
establishment  of  the  laws  which  provided  for  the 
creation  of  the  chief  administrative  positions  about 
the  President  can  be  traced  during  the  years  from  1787 
to  1789.  The  consideration  of  the  subject  is  sufficiently 
important  to  warrant  the  space  of  a  separate  chapter. 


NOTE 

HISTORY  OF  ADMINISTRATION  :  1775-1789 : 

The  most  careful  discussion  of  administrative  devel- 
opment and  ideals  during  the  period  is  to  be  found  in 
Francis  Wharton's  introductory  chapters  to  The  Revo- 
lutionary Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  the  United 
States,  I,  251-666.  J.  C.  Guggenheimer's  essay,  "The 
Development  of  the  Executive  Departments,  1775- 
1789"  in  J.  Franklin  Jameson 's  Essays  in  the  Consti- 
tutional History  of  the  United  States  in  the  Formative 
Period,  1775-1789  (Boston :  1889)  remains  a  clear  study 
of  the  main  facts  and  tendencies  of  administrative 
history.  Gaillard  Hunt  has  contributed  something  to 
our  knowledge  of  the  administration  of  foreign  affairs 
from  1775  to  1789  in  his  first  paper  printed  as  part  of 
a  History  of  the  Department  of  State  in  The  American 
Journal  of  International  Law  (October,  1907),  I,  pt. 
ii,  867  if.  Naval  administration  has  found  a  very  com- 
petent historian  in  Dr.  Charles  0.  Paullin,  The  Navy 
of  the  American  Revolution:  its  Administration,  its 
Policy,  and  its  Achievements  (Cleveland:  1906).  This 
work  should  be  supplemented  by  an  article  by  Dr. 
Paullin,  "Early  Naval  Administration  under  the  Con- 
stitution," in  the  Proceedings  of  the  United  States 
Naval  Institute  for  September,  1906,  XXXII,  1001- 
1030,  and  by  Dr.  Gardner  W.  Allen's  Our  Navy  and  the 
Barbary  Corsairs  (Boston:  1905).  Such  books  as 
W.  G.  Sumner's  The  Financier  and  the  Finances  of  the 
American  Revolution  (New  York:  2  vols.,  1891),  and 


THE  BASIS  OF  THE  CABINET  65 

A.  S.  Bolles's  Financial  History  of  the  United  States, 
I  (New  York:  1879),  give  the  facts  regarding  financial 
administration.  There  is  no  special  work  of  moment 
on  either  the  war  administration  or  that  of  the  Post- 
Office  during  this  period. 


CHAPTER  III 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  IDEA  OF  A  PKESIDENT'S  COUNCIL: 

1787-1788 

BY  1787  the  conception  of  the  pressing  need  of  a 
form  of  continental  executive  endowed  with 
power  and  some  degree  of  independence  had  gained 
consideration  if  not  general  acceptance  among  states- 
men in  the  United  States.  The  practical  failure  of 
the  government  of  the  Confederation  under  congres- 
sional direction  must  have  done  much  to  enforce  it. 
About  this  time  John  Adams  probably  expressed  a 
rather  general  view  regarding  executive  power  when 
he  declared  that  the  "attention  of  the  whole  nation 
should  be  fixed  upon  one  point,  and  the  blame  and 
censure,  as  well  as  the  impeachment  and  vengeance 
for  abuse  of  this  power,  should  be  directed  solely  to 
the  ministers  of  one  man.  '  '  l  In  view  of  the  growing 
strength  of  the  conception,  it  is  hardly  surprising  to 
discover  that  not  a  single  plan  of  government  was  pre- 
sented to  the  Convention  at  Philadelphia  which  did  not 
embody  as  a  prominent  feature  some  form  of  executive. 
Two  leading  theories  regarding  the  executive  came 
before  the  Convention  for  discussion.  In  advocating 


Defence  of  the  Constitutions  of  Government  of  the  United 
States  of  America,"  etc.,  in  Works,  IV,  586.  Elsewhere  in  the  same  trea- 
tise Adams  comments  approvingly  on  the  single  executive.  Ibid.,  pp.  290, 
379,  398,  585.  Preface  dated  in  London,  "Grosvenor  Square,  January  1, 
1787.  '  '  On  June  6  following,  Madison  referred  to  this  work  in  a  letter 
to  Jefferson,  and  said  that  it  "has  excited  a  good  deal  of  attention. 
....  It  will  ....  become  a  powerful  engine  in  forming  the  public 
opinion."  Documentary  History  of  the  Constitution,  IV,  183,  264-265, 
314,  333,  369. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  IDEA  67 

one  of  these  Roger  Sherman  of  Connecticut  took  rather 
the  most  conspicuous  place,  though  he  was  seconded 
by  Charles  Pinckney,  John  Eutledge  and  Colonel 
George  Mason.  Madison,  James  Wilson  and  Gouver- 
neur  Morris  argued  ably  for  the  other  theory.  Accord- 
ing to  Sherman  the  executive  power  was  nothing  more 
than  an  institution  for  carrying  the  will  of  the  legis- 
lature into  effect,  hence  such  power  should  be  confided 
to  one  or  more  officials  appointed  by  the  legislature 
and  removable  by  the  same  body.  Madison  and  his 
following,  on  the  other  hand,  insisted  that  the  execu- 
tive power  should  be  representative  of  the  people.  The 
President  should  be  president  of  the  whole  Union,  and 
elected  in  such  manner  as  to  be  justly  styled  the  man 
of  the  people.  It  was  a  point  of  view  that  became 
especially  familiar  in  the  time  of  Andrew  Jackson  and 
his  immediate  successors,  and  was  very  impressively 
set  forth  in  the  last  annual  message  of  President  Polk 
in  December,  1848.2  Madison  insisted  that  the  func- 
tions of  the  executive,  moreover,  should  be  united  in 
one  person  who  could  be  held  responsible  for  his  acts 
to  the  people  alone.  According  to  the  latter  theory, 
the  executive  must  be  independent  of  the  legislature 
for  the  sake  of  acting  at  times  as  a  check  upon  it. 

"Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  ed.  J.  D.  Eichardson,  II, 
447  ff.,  518,  591,  648,  652,  655.  Ill,  18,  90,  176.  IV,  664  ff.  Observe  in 
this  connection  the  statements  of  Senator  W.  C.  Preston  of  South  Caro- 
lina on  January  24,  1842,  in  the  U.  S.  Senate:  "In  truth,  there  was  only 
one  department  of  the  Government  that  was  truly  Democratic,  and  that 
was  the  Executive  ....  he  [the  President]  was  the  only  officer  that 
came  in  on  the  broad  basis  of  the  whole  Union,  and  was  therefore  the 

proper  exponent  of  the  popular  will The  Executive  was  elected 

by  the  people  of  the  United  States."    Globe,  27  Cong.,  2  sess,  p.  167. 


68  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Madison's  view  met  finally  with  the  approbation  of 
the  Convention.  The  result  of  Sherman's  position, 
had  it  gained  the  day,  would  have  been  something 
much  akin  to  the  parliamentary  system  that  is  char- 
acterized nowadays  as  cabinet  government.  The  chief 
magistrate  would  inevitably  have  been  subordinated 
to  the  legislative  will.3 


It  was  apparent  from  an  early  date  in  1787  that 
some  place  was  likely  to  be  found  in  any  useful  scheme 
of  national  government  for  the  "  great  ministerial 
officers. ' '  The  question  as  to  the  mode  of  relating  such 
officers  to  the  parts — executive,  legislative,  judicial— 
of  the  new  or  altered  structure  afforded  a  minor, 
though  difficult,  problem.  Perhaps  it  was  his  appre- 
ciation of  just  this  problem  before  the  assembling  of 
the  Convention  that  moved  Madison  to  remark  in  a 
letter  to  Washington  that  the  "  National  supremacy 
in  the  Executive  departments  is  liable  to  some  diffi- 
culty, unless  the  officers  administering  them  could  be 
made  appointable  by  the  supreme  Government. ' ' 
Before  he  left  the  Convention  in  June,  Hamilton  was 
sure  that  the  executive  should  "have  the  sole  appoint- 
ment of  the  heads  or  chief -officers  of  the  Departments 

3 For  Sherman's  position,  Elliot,  Delates  (1845),  V,  140,  142,  192, 
322,  508.  The  views  of  Madison,  Wilson  and  others  may  be  followed  in 
Elliot,  V,  142,  143,  144,  322,  324,  337,  360,  362-367  (passim),  395,  472, 
473,  516.  Governor  Simeon  E.  Baldwin  has  summarized  clearly  the  two 
positions  in  his  essay  entitled  "Absolute  Power  an  American  Institu- 
tion," in  his  volume,  Modern  Political  Institutions  (1898),  pp.  87-89. 

*  Writings  of  James  Madison  (ed.  Hunt),  II,  347. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  IDEA  69 

of  Finance,  War,  and  Foreign  Affairs. '  '5  The  appoint- 
ment of  such  officers  would  be  the  first  duty  of  an 
executive,  according  to  Gouverneur  Morris's  view 
which  he  expressed  about  a  month  later,  on  July  19*. 
Such  officers,  he  thought, i '  will  exercise  their  functions 

in  subordination  to  the  executive Without  these 

ministers,  the  executive  can  do  nothing  of  conse- 
quence. ' ' 

Early  in  the  previous  April  Madison,  having  con- 
ceived the  plan  of  associating  the  ministerial  officers 
with  the  executive  in  a  council  of  revision,  communi- 
cated his  idea  to  Randolph.6  But  the  suggestion  w^as 
not  involved  in  the  Eandolph  resolutions  of  the  fol- 
lowing May  29 ;  the  council  of  revision  was  there  made 
to  include  "a  convenient  number  of  the  national  judi- 
ciary"7 in  place  of  the  ministerial  officers.  And 
throughout  the  course  of  the  debates,  from  June  4  to 
about  the  middle  of  August,  Madison  argued  vigor- 
ously at  intervals  for  the  union  of  judicial  officers  with 
the  chief  magistrate  in  the  business  of  revision.  In 
this  matter  he  was  seconded  by  such  capable  men  as 
Wilson,  Mason  and  Ellsworth.8 

Like  Madison,  Charles  Pinckney  had  at  first  favored 
the  plan  of  joining  the  heads  of  the  principal  depart- 
ments in  a  council  of  revision,  but  apparently  he 

5  Elliot,  V,  205.    I  use  the  capitalization  of  the  Madison  Papers  (ed. 
Gilpin),  p.  891. 

6  April  8.     Elliot,  V,  108. 

7  Ibid.,  V,  128.     Jay  had  expressed  this  same  thought  to  Washington 
as  early  as  January  7,  1787.     Documentary  History  of  the  Constitution, 
IV,  56. 

»Ilid.,  V,  152,  153,  164-166  (passim),  328,  344-349  (passim),  378,  428- 
431  (passim).  Kate  M.  Rowland,  The  Life  of  George  Mason,  II,  113  ff. 


70  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

relinquished  the  idea  "from  a  consideration  that 
these  could  be  called  on  by  the  executive  magistrate 

whenever  he  pleased  to  consult  them "  At  no 

time  does  he  seem  to  have  favored  the  view  of  admit- 
ting the  judges  into  the  business  of  revision.  Eut- 
ledge  followed  closely  in  the  track  of  his  young 
colleague  from  South  Carolina.9 

Out  of  the  discussions  over  this  subject  there 
developed  the  plan  of  the  qualified  veto.  And  this 
veto  the  Convention  decided  finally  to  lodge  in  the 
hands  of  the  President  alone. 

A  second  plan  for  a  council  appeared  in  connection 
with  the  problem  of  arranging  for  the  power  of 
appointment.  When  Eandolph  referred  to  this  power 
as  formidable,  whether  lodged  in  the  hands  of  the 
executive  or  the  legislature,10  he  probably  expressed 
a  very  common  apprehension.  At  all  events  Colonel 
Mason,  fearful  of  a  possible  coalition  between  the 
President  and  the  Senate  in  the  business  of  appoint- 
ments, recommended  urgently  the  establishment  of 
a  distinct  council  of  appointment,  the  body  to  be  com- 
posed of  six  members  appointed  by  vote  of  the  states 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  with  the  same  dura- 
tion and  rotation  of  office  as  the  Senate,  two  selected 
from  the  eastern,  two  from  the  middle,  and  two  from 
the  southern  states.11  The  Convention,  however,  did 

9  American  Historical  Review,  IX,  743.    Elliot,  V,  165,  349,  429. 

10  August  24.     Elliot,  V,  475. 

HI  give  the  plan  as  set  forth  in  Mason's  "Objections"  written  soon 
after  the  Convention  had  adjourned.  K.  M.  Rowland,  Life  of  George 
Mason,  II,  388.  Mason  expressed  himself  in  a  slightly  different  and  less 
mature  way  before  the  Convention.  Elliot,  V,  522,  525.  In  the  Virginia 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  IDEA  71 

not  favor  the  plan,  agreeing  that  the  President  alone 
should  nominate,  but  that  he  should  be  obliged  to  ask 
the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  before  appoint- 
ments could  be  completed.  The  appointing  power  was 
thus  shared.  "From  this  fatal  defect,"  declared 
Mason,  "has  arisen  the  improper  power  of  the  Senate 
in  the  appointment  of  public  officers,  and  the  alarming 
dependence  and  connection  between  that  branch  of  the 
legislature  and  the  supreme  Executive."12 

Although  leaders  such  as  Wilson,  Dickinson  and 
Madison  acknowledged  some  force  in  Mason's  view, 
the  weight  of  authority  was  against  the  plan  and 
probably  more  in  accord  with  the  reasonings  of  Rufus 
King.  To  King  it  seemed  that  most  of  the  incon- 
veniences charged  on  the  Senate  would  be  incident 
to  a  separate  council.  King  did  not  believe  that  "all 
the  minute  officers  were  to  be  appointed  by  the  Sen- 
ate, or  any  other  original  source,  but  by  the  higher 
officers  of  the  departments  to  which  they  belong." 
He  was  convinced,  moreover,  that  the  people  would 
be  alarmed  at  the  unnecessary  creation  of  a  new  and 
separate  body  "which  must  increase  the  expense  as 
well  as  influence  of  the  government. ' ' 13 

The  idea  of  a  council  of  appointment  was  neither 
peculiar  to  nor  original  with  Colonel  Mason,  although 
he  was  the  leading  exponent  of  it  in  the  Philadelphia 
Convention.  In  various  ways  the  colonial  legislatures 

ratifying  convention,  on  June  18,  1788,  Mason  "apprehended  a  council 
would  arise  out  of  the  Senate,  which  ....  he  thought  dangerous. " 
Elliot,  III,  496. 

12  Rowland,  op.  cit.,  II,  388. 

13  Elliot,  V,  523  ff. 


72  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

were  wont  to  exercise  control  over  appointments.  In 
New  York  State  after  1777  there  was  a  special  council 
of  appointment — a  group  of  senators  annually  named 
by  the  Assembly  and  representing  districts.14  In  1783 
Pelatiah  Webster  conceived  of  a  council  of  state  for 
the  national  government  as  partly  concerned  with  the 
business  of  appointments;  and  this  council,  it  will  be 
recalled,  was  composed  chiefly  of  the  administrative 
heads  of  departments,  and  included  also  representa- 
tives from  the  three  great  sections  of  the  country.15 

Within  a  month  after  the  adjournment  of  the  Con- 
vention Bichard  Henry  Lee  expressed  regret  that  a 
privy  council  of  eleven  members  had  not  been  pro- 
vided, this  council  to  be  chosen  by  the  President  and 
to  be  joined  with  that  officer  in  civil  and  military 
appointments.16  John  Adams  in  London  sent  a  letter 
to  Jefferson  in  Paris,  under  date  of  December  6,  and 
remarked : 

The  Nomination  and  Appointment  to  all  offices  I  would  have 
given  to  the  President,  assisted  only  by  a  Privy  Council  of 
his  own  Creation,  but  not  a  vote  or  voice  would  I  have  given 
to  the  Senate  or  any  Senator,  unless  lie  were  of  the  Privy 
Council 17 

At  about  this  time  one  of  the  reasons  given  by  the 
dissenting  minority  of  the  Pennsylvania  state  con- 

w  Charters  and  Constitutions,  2d  ed.  (1878),  edited  by  B.  P.  Poore, 
p.  1336. 

is  Supra,  chap.  II,  p.  62. 

16  Letter  dated  New  York,  October  16,  and  addressed  to  Governor 
Eandolph.     American  Museum,  December,  1787,  II,  557. 

17  Documentary  History  of  the  Constitution,  IV,  390. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  IDEA  73 

vention  for  their  opposition  to  the  Constitution  was 
that  the  "president  general  is  dangerously  connected 
with  the  senate. "  Furthermore,  it  was  their  convic-/ 
tion  that  "the  supreme  executive  powers  ought  to 
have  been  placed  in  the  president,  with  a  small  inde- 
pendent council,  made  permanently  responsible  for 
every  appointment  to  office  ....  by  having  their 
opinion  recorded. ' ' 18  In  the  New  York  state  conven- 
tion, on  July  5,  1788,  Melancton  Smith,  on  behalf  of  a 
committee,  recommended  a  very  similar  plan.19  Even 
as  late  as  July,  1789,  when  the  subject  was  merely  of 
speculative  interest,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  new 
government  was  in  operation,  John  Adams  once  more 
expressed  himself  to  Roger  Sherman  on  the  same 
general  topic,  Adams  arguing  for  a  council  of  appoint- 
ment "selected  by  the  President  himself,  at  his  pleas- 
ure, from  among  the  senators,  representatives,  and 
nation  at  large, "  while  Sherman  was  inclined  to 
accept  the  arrangement  for  appointments  which  the 
Convention  had  provided.20 

Thus  efforts  to  establish  two  councils,  a  council  of 
revision  and  a  council  of  appointment  separate  from 
the  Senate,  had  failed.  It  will  be  well  at  this  point 
to  examine  a  third  effort — that  of  establishing  a  coun- 
cil which  had  as  its  most  striking  characteristic  the 
combination  of  the  heads  of  departments  as  an  advis- 
ory body  to  the  chief  magistrate. 

18  Pennsylvania  Packet  and  Daily  Advertiser  of  December  18,  1787. 
The  "Reasons"  were  dated  December  12. 

19  Elliot,  Delates  (2d  ed.,  1836),  II,  408. 

20  Works  of  John  Adams,  VI,  427  ff.    Letter  written  about  July  18. 


?4  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

II 

In  the  recently  discovered  " Outline"  of  Charles 
Pinckney's  draft  of  a  constitution — a  draft  that  was 
presented  to  the  Convention  on  'May  29 — the  Presi- 
dent was  to  "have  a  Eight  to  advise  with  the  Heads 
of  the  different  Departments  as  his  Council."  This 
was  the  first  and  single  project  for  an  advisory  coun- 
cil which  was  offered  at  the  very  beginning  of  the 
business  of  the  Philadelphia  gathering.  It  is  remark- 
ably interesting  as  a  clue  to  what  was  probably  one 
of  Pinckney's  favorite  projects. 

The  thought  of  some  such  body  was  occasionally 
in  the  minds  of  certain  members  during  the  months 
of  June  and  July.  As  early  as  June  1  Madison 
approved  a  single  executive  '  *  when  aided  by  a  Council, 
who  should  have  the  right  to  advise  and  record  their 
proceedings,  but  not  to  control  his  authority. ' m  Gerry 
likewise  was  in  favor  of  annexing  a  council  to  the 
executive  "in  order  to  give  weight  and  inspire  confi- 
dence." The  references  are  not  explicit  enough  to 
indicate  (at  least  in  Gerry's  case)  anything  more  than 
a  vague  and  general  notion.  Somewhat  clearer  was 
Sherman's  idea  expressed  three  days  later — on 
June  4 — when  he  remarked  that  "in  all  the  states 
there  was  a  council  of  advice,  without  which  the  first 
magistrate  could  not  act.  A  council  he  thought 
necessary  to  make  the  establishment  acceptable  to  the 
people.  Even  in  Great  Britain  the  King  has  a  coun- 

21  American  Historical  Beview,  July,  1904,  IX,  742. 

22/Znd,  January,  1898,  III,  320.     Notes  of  Major  William  Pierce. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  IDEA  75 

cil;  and  though  he  appoints  it  himself,  its  advice  has 
its  weight  with  him,  and  attracts  the  confidence  of  the 
people. "  Almost  immediately  after  this  suggestion 
the  Convention  was  inclined  to  approve  of  the  single 
executive.23  And  they  proceeded  at  once  to  grapple 
with  the  Randolph  project  of  a  council  of  revision. 
In  connection  with  the  discussions  of  it  both  Pinckney 
and  Rutledge  saw  how  easy  it  would  be  for  the  chief 
magistrate  to  advise  with  the  principal  officers  or 
heads  of  departments  and  to  obtain  from  them  not 
only  sound  information  on  possible  laws,  but  also 
helpful  opinions  on  various  other  matters.  Accord- 
ingly Pinckney  and  Rutledge  refused,  partly,  it  would 
seem,  from  their  quick  recognition  of  its  needlessness, 
to  agree  to  the  council  of  revision.24 

It  was  well  along  in  the  month  of  August  before  the 
Convention  listened  to  any  elaborated  plan  for  an 
advisory  council  to  the  President.  But  on  August  18 
Ellsworth,  wishing  that  a  council  might  be  provided, 
suggested  that  it  should  be  composed  of  the  president 
of  the  Senate,  the  chief  justice,  and  the  ministers  of 
foreign  and  domestic  affairs,  of  war,  of  finance,  and 
of  marine.  The  project  was  sufficiently  definite  to 
bring  Charles  Pinckney  to  his  feet  with  the  reminder 
that  Gouverneur  Morris,  then  absent,  had  already 
given  notice  that  he  would  present  a  plan  for  such  a 
body.  As  for  Pinckney,  he  indicated  his  own  thought 
in  the  matter  by  asserting  that  "the  President  should 
be  authorized  to  call  for  advice,  or  not,  as  he  might 

23  Elliot,  V,  141,  150,  151. 

24  lUd.,  V,  165,  349. 


I 


76  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

choose.  Give  Mm  an  able  council,"  continued  Pinck- 
ney,  "and  it  will  thwart  him;  a  weak  one,  and  he  will 
shelter  himself  under  their  sanction."25  Two  days 
later — on  August  20 — Gouverneur  Morris  introduced 
an  elaborated  scheme  for  an  advisory  council.  Pinck- 
ney's  original  project  as  well  as  his  occasional  refer- 
ences to  the  subject  would  seem  to  imply  that  he  may 
have  had  a  hand  in  the  scheme.  It  should  be  observed, 
at  any  rate,  that  he  seconded  Morris's  motion  to  bring 
it  before  the  Convention  just  after  having  asserted 
his  conviction  (in  writing)  that  no  principal  officer 
"shall  be  capable  of  holding,  at  the  same  time,  any 
other  office  of  trust  or  emolument,  under  the  United 
States,  or  an  individual  state."26 

Morris 's  Council  of  State — such  was  its  first  title- 
was  to  be  composed  of  seven  members,  all  of  whom, 
excepting  the  Chief-Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
were  to  be  appointed  by  the  President.  Besides  the 
Chief -Justice  and  a  "Secretary  of  State,"  the  latter 
apparently  nothing  more  than  a  chief-clerk  or  scribe 
to  the  council  and  a  "public  secretary"  to  the  Presi- 
dent, there  were  five  secretaries  of  departments- 
domestic  affairs,  commerce  and  finance,  foreign 
affairs,  war,  and  marine.  As  thus  composed,  the 
council  was  designed  to  assist  the  President  in  con- 
ducting public  affairs.  It  was  furthermore  provided 
that  the  President  "may  from  time  to  time  submit 
any  matter  to  the  discussion  of  the  council  of  state, 
and  he  may  require  the  written  opinion  of  any  one  or 

25  Elliot,  V,  442. 

.,  V,  445,  446. 


, 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  IDEA  77 

more  of  the  members.  But  he  shall  in  all  cases  exer- 
cise his  own  judgment,  and  either  conform  to  such 
opinions,  or  not,  as  he  may  think  proper.  " 

The  plan  went  immediately  to  the  Committee  of 
Detail,  of  which  John  Eutledge  was  chairman,  and 
appeared  two  days  later,  on  August  22,  slightly 
modified.27  In  its  modified  form  there  were  to  be  eight 
members.  The  Committee,  while  retaining  the  Chief- 
Justice,  had  discarded  the  rather  unnecessary  Secre- 
tary of  State,  and  had  added  to  the  five  secretaries  of 
departments  the  president  of  the  Senate  and  the 
speaker  of  the  House.  They  had  thus  combined  in  a 
"privy  council"—  as  it  was  newly  termed  —  repre- 
sentatives of  the  legislative  and  the  judiciary  along 
with  the  great  administrative  officers.  This  privy 
council  was  to  advise  the  President.  Its  advice,  how- 
ever, should  —  the  Committee  employing  Ellsworth's 
language  —  "not  conclude  "  him.  The  President  must 
be  alone  responsible  for  any  measures  or  opinions  that 
he  might  adopt. 

There  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  this  scheme  of  an 
executive  council  was  ever  discussed  by  the  whole 
Convention.  Among  other  postponed  subjects  it  went 
at  the  end  of  August  into  the  hands  of  a  large  com- 
mittee of  eleven  of  which  Morris  himself  was  a 
member.28  Here  we  know  from  Morris's  own  state- 


,  V,  462. 

28  Ibid.,  V,  503.  Besides  Morris  on  the  committee,  there  were  Nich- 
olas Oilman  of  New  Hampshire,  Eufus  King  of  Massachusetts,  Sherman 
'  of  Connecticut,  David  Brearley  of  New  Jersey,  John  Dickinson  of  Dela- 
ware, Daniel  Carroll  of  Maryland,  Madison  of  Virginia,  Hugh  Williamson 
of  North  Carolina,  Pierce  Butler  of  South  Carolina,  and  Abraham  Bald- 
win of  Georgia  —  all  of  whom  signed  the  Constitution. 


78  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

merit  that  the  question  of  a  council  was  considered,29 
but  it  was  decided  that  the  President,  by  persuading 
his  council  to  concur  in  wrong  measures,  would 
require  its  protection  for  them.  On  September  4  the 
barest  suggestion  of  the  original  phraseology  was 
agreed  to:  the  President  might  "require  the  opinion 
in  writing  of  the  principal  officer  in  each  of  the  execu- 
tive departments,  upon  any  subject  relating  to  the 
duties  of  their  respective  offices. ym  This  language 
was  all  that  survived  of  an  elaborate  plan  for  a  coun- 
I  cil.  It  proved  to  be  the  basis  in  the  Constitution  which 
helped  to  predetermine  the  President's  Cabinet  Coun- 
cil. 

It  takes  no  very  close  scrutiny  of  the  development 
of  Morris's  project,  as  thus  far  revealed  in  the 
sources,  to  conclude  that  it  was  first  formulated  about 
August  20  in  response  to  a  natural  feeling  that  the 
chief  magistrate,  however  well  endowed  he  might  be, 
would  require  aid — some  such  council  might  assist 
him.  That  assistance  could  best  be  given  in  the  shape 
or  mode  of  advice — an  idea  that  was  emphasized  in 
the  project  as  it  re-appeared  on  August  22.  It  was 
finally  determined  on  September  4  that  advice  should 
be  restricted  to  opinions  in  writing.  But  aside  from 
the  important  consideration  that  it  left  its  stamp  upon 
the  Constitution,  this  plan  for  an  advisory  council 
revealed  a  historic  background  which,  so  far  as  it  can 
be  discovered,  should  not  be  overlooked. 

The  very  titles,  whether  council  of  state  or  privy 

29  Elliot,  V,  525. 
so  Hid.,  V,  507. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  IDEA  79 

council,  reflected  phrases  that  had  been  familiar  to 
Americans  for  generations.  The  governor's  council 
in  its  advisory  capacity  was  referred  to  in  colonial 
days  often  as  the  council  of  state,31  and  rarely  as  the 
privy  council.32  In  the  state  constitutions  of  the  Bevo- 
lutionary  epoch  (1776-1789)  both  phrases  appear,  but 
the  phrase  privy  council  is  no  longer  unusual.33  In  the 
constitution  of  Virginia  of  1776  the  two  phrases  were 
used  interchangeably.  And  there  can  be  little  doubt 
that  they  generally  implied  the  same  sort  of  political 
organ  —  as  a  rule  they  probably  implied  a  body  of  men 
designed  to  stand  in  close  relationship  with  the  state 
governor  as  his  assistants  and  advisers. 

Passing  beyond  the  usage  of  terms,  the  state  gov- 
ernors after  1775  as  well  as  their  councils  of  advisers 
were  markedly  dependent  on  the  General  Assemblies, 
by  which  as  a  rule  they  were  chosen.  In  fact,  neither 
governor  nor  council  of  state  could  have  been  intended 
to  have  much  real  freedom  of  action.  It  was  a  time 


,  Statutes,  I,  371,  515,  531,  537.     E.  I.  Miller,  The  Legis- 
lature   of    the    Province    of    Virginia     (Columbia    University    Studies, 

XXVIII,  1907),  pp.  22,  27.    N.  D.  Mereness,  Maryland  as  a  Proprietary 
Province  (1901),  pp.  106-107,  153,  160,  174  ff.     E.  B.  Greene,  The  Pro- 
vincial Governor  (Harvard  Historical  Studies,  VII,  1898),  p.  75.     W.  H. 
Fry,  New  Hampshire  as  a  Royal  Province  (Columbia  University  Studies, 

XXIX,  1908),  pp.  132,  134. 

32  H.    L.    Osgood,    American    Colonies    in    the    Seventeenth    Century 
(1904),  II,  65-66.     Mereness,  Maryland,  p.  369.    See  Note  at  the  end  of 
this  chapter. 

33  See  the  constitutions  of  Delaware,  New  Jersey,  Virginia,  and  the 
two   constitutions  —  1776  and   1778  —  of  South  Carolina.      Conclusions  in 
this  and  succeeding  paragraphs  have  been  based  on  a  comparative  study 
of  the  eighteen  constitutions  which  were  formulated  between  1775  and 
1789.    The  texts  used  are  those  which  are  readily  accessible  in  Poore's 
Charters  and  Constitutions  (2  vols.,  2d  ed.,  1878). 


80  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

when  there  was  widespread  fear  of  one-man  power. 
Most  of  the  advisory  bodies  of  the  epoch  appear  to 
have  been  elected  by  ballot :  ordinarily  by  joint  ballot 
of  the  two  houses,  but  occasionally  by  the  two  houses 
balloting  separately  for  portions  of  the  membership. 
In  a  few  instances  members  of  the  advisory  council 
were  taken  in  part  from  the  people  at  large.34  The 
usual  practice,  however,  was  to  compose  the  advisory 
council  of  men  selected  from  the  upper  and  lower 
houses.  The  privy  council  of  New  Jersey,  with  its 
" three  or  more"  members,  was  simply  a  selected 
group  within  the  legislative  council  or  upper  house, 
a  group  intended  to  stand  in  an  especially  close  rela- 
tion to  the  chief  magistrate.35  In  a  few  of  the  states 
members  of  the  advisory  council  retained  seats  in  the 
legislature  after  their  election  as  advisers.36  In  other 
states  the  advisory  council  formed  a  separate  body. 
Occasional  statements  in  these  early  state  constitu- 
tions, to  the  effect  that  records  of  advice  given  to  the 
governors  must  be  carefully  kept,  and  that  from  time 
to  time  such  records  must  be  submitted  to  the  inspec- 
tion of  the  legislatures,  afford  proof  that  the  advisory 
councils  were  watched  and  that  they  were  presumably 
considered  as  responsible,  not  to  the  governors,  but 
to  the  popular  bodies.37  The  truth  was  well  expressed 
by  Madison  when  he  said38  to  the  Convention  that 

34  South  Carolina   (1778);   Virginia;   Massachusetts. 
sspoore,  op.  cit.,  p.  1312. 

36  Maryland;   South  Carolina   (1778). 

37  The  Massachusetts  constitution  of  1780,  Article  V,  will  serve  as  an 
example. 

38  July  17.    Elliot,  V,  327.    July  21.    Ibid.,  p.  345. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  IDEA  81 

"  Experience  had  proved  a  tendency  in  our  govern- 
ment to  throw  all  power  'into  the  legislative  vortex. 
The  executives  of  the  states  are*in  general  little  more 
than  ciphers ;  the  legislatures  omnipotent. ' ' 

Whether  the  state  governor's  advisory  council  con- 
tained administrative  officers,  it  is  impossible  to  say. 
The  subject  is  a  peculiarly  difficult  one  for  the  inves- 
tigator, and  still  awaits  treatment  at  the  hands  of  some 
industrious  and  competent  scholar.  While  it  may  be 
noted  in  passing  that  the  constitution  of  North  Caro- 
lina of  1776  expressly  prohibited  any  secretary  or 
attorney-general  of  that  state  from  holding  a  seat  in 
the  council  of  state,  it  is  certain  that  in  pre-Eevolu- 
tionary  days  the  governor's  council  often  included 
some  variety  of  administrative  officials — such,  for 
examples,  as  the  surveyor-general  of  customs,  the 
colony  treasurer,  the  superintendent  of  Indian  affairs, 
the  secretary  of  the  province,  the  attorney-general,  and 
others  not  so  easy  to  specify.39 

It  was  no  doubt  natural  for  Americans  of  the  Revo- 
lutionary epoch  still  to  think  of  the  English  institu- 
tion when  the  phrase  privy  council  was  spoken.  In 
the  very  height  of  the  quarrel  with  Great  Britain, 
remarked  James  Iredell  in  1788,  "so  wedded  were  our 
ideas  to  the  institution  of  a  Council,  that  the  practice 
was  generally  if  not  universally  followed  at  the  forma- 
tion of  our  governments,  though  we  instituted  Coun- 

39  Mereness,  Maryland,  pp.  176  ff.  W.  Eoy  Smith,  South  Carolina  as  a 
Eoyal  Province,  1719-1776  (1903),  pp.  54,  86.  Miller,  Legislature  of 
Virginia,  p.  140.  E.  P.  Tanner,  The  Province  of  New  Jersey,  1664-17S8 
(Columbia  University  Studies,  XXX,  1908),  pp.  277,  282,  295. 


82  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

cils  of  a  quite  different  nature "40  The  state- 
ment from  such  a  source  is  enough  to  warn  us  away 
from  the  view  that  there  was  any  very  definite  or  close 
analogy  between  the  old  English  institution  and  the 
governor's  council  for  advisory  purposes,  whether 
such  a  council  was  found  in  colonial  times  or  during 
the  period  of  the  early  state  constitutions. 

The  tradition  of  a  council  for  advice  and  assistance 
was  probably  carried  over  from  colonial  days  into  the 
period  of  the  Revolution  and  the  years  immediately 
following  by  the  phrases  "council  of  state"  and 
" privy  council."  It  is  possible  that  Morris  and  those 
interested  with  him  in  the  project  of  an  advisory 
council  for  the  President  may  have  been  aware  of 
certain  colonial  or  state  combinations  in  the  shape  of 
executive  councils  that  served  in  some  respects  for 
examples.  But  in  the  absence  of  any  specific  evidence, 
it  seems  probable  that  the  plan  repeated  or  reflected 
suggestions  made  in  connection  with  the  central  gov- 
ernment only  as  far  back  as  1781  or  perhaps  a  little 
earlier.  From  about  that  time  the  evidence  is  clear 
that  men  were  considering  the  desirability  of  co- 
operation among  administrative  officials  for  the  pur- 
pose of  assisting  Congress.  Any  one  ordinarily 
familiar  in  that  day  with  English  constitutional  tradi- 
tions would  naturally  think  of  an  executive  as  consult- 
ing with  the  great  officers  of  state.  The  really  crucial 
question  in  1787  was :  What  officers,  with  due  regard 

w  ' '  Answers  to  Mr.  Mason 's  Objections  to  the  New  Constitution, ' ' 
etc.  Keprinted  in  P.  L.  Ford,  Pamphlets  on  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  (1888),  p.  345. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  IDEA  83 

to  the  theory  of  a  proper  separation  of  powers,  should 
be  brought  into  such  close  relations  with  the  American 
President  as  to  be  easily  consulted  by  him  for  the  pur- 
pose of  assisting  him  in  his  tasks?  This  question 
Morris  attempted  to  answer  when  he  formulated  his 
plan  of  a  council. 

As  assistant  to  Robert  Morris,  Superintendent  of 
Finance,  Gouverneur  Morris  had  had  some  oppor- 
tunity to  test  in  practice  any  theories  of  administra- 
tion which  he  might  have  preconceived.  Like  Pelatiah 
Webster,  Morris  included  in  his  council  a  representa- 
tive of  the  judicial  power.  Webster  had  recommended 
that  Congress  obtain  the  opinions  of  the  ministerial 
officers  "in  writing,"  for  the  purpose,  no  doubt,  of 
holding  them  strictly  and  individually  responsible  for 
their  advice.  Presumably  with  similar  intent  Morris 
declared  that  the  President  "may  require  the  written 
opinions"  of  members  of  his  council.41  He  was,  how- 
ever, unwilling  to  shackle  the  President  by  such 
advice — it  need  not  "conclude"  him. 

Brought  forward  by  one  of  the  most  daring  and 
brilliant  among  the  younger  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion,42 the  plan  was  sure  to  attract  attention,  especially 
as  it  remained  the  single  careful  attempt  during  the 
entire  course  of  proceedings  to  enforce  the  idea  of  an 
advisory  council.  It  came  from  the  hands  of  the 
Committee  of  Detail  on  August  22  in  less  simple  form 
than  that  in  which  it  was  given  to  them,  and  accord- 

«  August  20. 

42  Born  at  Morrisania,  N.  Y.,  on  January  31,  1752,  but  a  resident  of 
Pennsylvania  in  1787  and  a  delegate  from  that  state. 


84  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

ingly  tended  to  hamper  the  President  by  forcing  into 
combination  certain  legislative  and  judicial  factors 
which  must  in  practice  have  defied  the  working  of  an 
executive  that  was  meant  ta.be  largely  independent  of 
those  factors  and  alone  responsible.  It  was  quite  too 
complicated  a  problem,  we  may  conclude,  for  any 
committee  to  re-adjust  the  plan  in  a  way  that  would 
meet  the  wishes  of  a  wearied  Convention.  But  it  is 
probable  that  it  was  neither  hastily  nor  thoughtlessly 
dismissed.43 


Ill 


It  should  be  clear  from  the  preceding  considerations 
that  there  were  offered  to  the  Convention  at  one  time 
or  another  more  or  less  definite  projects  for  three 
councils  with  somewhat  distinctive  aims — a  council  of 
revision,  a  council  of  appointment,  and  a  council  of 
state  or  privy  council  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  and 
advising  the  President.  The  Convention  disposed  first 
of  the  possible  need  of  a  revisionary  council  by  giving 
a  carefully  qualified  veto  power  to  the  President. 

«  "The  question  of  a  council,"  declared  Morris  on  September  7, 
1787,  "was  considered  in  the  committee,  where  it  was  judged  that  the 
President,  by  persuading  his  council  to  concur  in  his  wrong  measures, 
would  acquire  their  protection  for  them."  Elliot,  V,  525.  It  is  worth 
noting  that  some  years  later  Morris  drew  up,  in  French,  a  plan  for  a 
council  of  state  in  France.  Section  iii  provided  for  a  council  composed 
of  the  following  nine  officials:  Chancellor  or  minister  of  justice,  a  presi- 
dent of  the  council,  and  ministers  of  the  interior,  finance,  commerce, 
foreign  affairs,  war,  marine,  besides  a  secretary  of  state  entrusted  "with 
general  charge  of  affairs."  J.  Sparks,  The  Life  of  Gouverneur  Morris 
(1832),  III,  481,  485,  486. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  IDEA  85 

Toward  the  end  of  its  labors  it  determined  to  divide 
the  appointing  power  between  President  and  Senate. 
It  declined,  finally,  to  accept  the  elaborated  plan  of  an 
advisory  council  which  Morris  and  others  were  inter- 
ested in  arranging,  and  consequently  left  no  word  of 
such  a  body  in  the  final  draft  of  the  Constitution. 

In  the  discussions  of  the  period  there  are  frequent 
scattered  references  to  the  Senate  as  a  "  council  to  the 
President,"  "an  advising  body  to  the  executive,"  a 
"council  of  appointment,"  or  as  a  body  associated 
with  the  President  "to  manage  all  our  concerns  with 
foreign  nations."44  These  and  others  of  a  similar 
nature  represent  a  plausible  and  common  assumption 
that  the  Senate,  composed  at  the  start  of  no  more  than 
twenty-six  members  and  closely  associated  with  the 
President  by  the  letter  of  the  Constitution  in  the  mak- 
ing of  treaties  and  in  appointments,  would  serve  as  a 
council  to  the  President.  Some  of  the  President's 
work  must  be  accomplished  by  and  with  the  advice  and 
consent  of  the  Senate.  The  unforeseen  truth  was  that 
experience  alone  would  prove — as  it  did — that  there 
were  essential  difficulties  in  the  way  of  any  real  inti- 
macy between  the  chief  magistrate  and  the  upper 
legislative  house. 

From  the  establishment  of  principal  officers  in  1781 
through  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention  to  Septem- 

w  Elliot,  II,  47,  287,  306.  Ill,  220,  221,  489,  491,  493,  494,  496. 
V,  549.  In  an  essay  entitled  "The  Senate  of  the  United  States, "  re- 
printed in  his  volume,  A  Frontier  Town  and  other  Essays  (1906),  Sena- 
tor Henry  Cabot  Lodge  has  developed  clearly  the  historic  facts  regard- 
ing the  Senators  as  true  constitutional  advisers  of  the  President,  pp. 
70  ff. 


86  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

ber  17,  1787,  there  had  been  occasional  but  quite  defi- 
nite recognition,  as  we  have  seen,  that  these  officers 
were  considered  as  assistants  either  to  Congress  or, 
later,  to  the  proposed  executive  magistrate.  As  early 
as  1783  Pelatiah  Webster  regarded  them  as  fitted  to 
have  a  share  or  voice  in  the  business  of  appointment. 
It  was  Madison 's  first  thought — as  it  was  likewise 
Charles  Pinckney's45 — that  they  should  be  factors  in  a 
council  for  the  revision  of  legislation.  But  in  view  of 
another  project  before  the  Convention  Madison  sur- 
rendered his  first  opinion.  And  Pinckney  and  his 
colleague,  Eutledge,  took  the  position  that  the  Presi- 
dent, even  without  constitutional  provision  for  such 
a  council,  could  seek  the  advice  and  assistance  of  the 
principal  officers  in  case  he  felt  inclined  to  do  so. 
Although  the  Convention  failed  to  force  them  defi- 
nitely, by  the  law  of  the  Constitution,  into  either  a 
council  of  revision  or  of  appointment,  it  left  no  word 
in  the  text  which  would  prevent  the  President  from 
calling  on  the  principal  officers  for  advice  and  aid  in 
the  matter  of  a  proposed  veto  or  a  proposed  nomina- 
tion. In  truth,  viewed  freely  as  assistants  in  accord- 
ance with  the  prevalent  thought  of  the  epoch,  the 
principal  officers  might  be  asked  for  advice  on  a  great 
many  sorts  of  business  with  which  the  President  would 
inevitably  be  concerned. 

It  was  this  recognition  of  the  principal  officers  as 
assistants  that  again  may  be  traced  in  the  autumn  of 
1787.  It  was  Ellsworth's  idea,  expressed  in  December, 
that  "if  any  information  is  wanted,  the  heads  of  the 

« American  Historical  Review,  IX,  743. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  IDEA  87 

departments  who  are  always  at  hand  can  best  give  it, 
and  from  the  manner  of  their  appointment  will  be 
trustworthy."  At  about  the  same  time  James  Wil- 
son reminded  his  hearers  in  the  Pennsylvania  state 
convention  that  the  President  "will  have  before  him 
the  fullest  information  ....  he  will  avail  himself  not 
only  of  records  and  official  communications  ....  but 
he  will  have  also  the  advice  of  the  executive  officers  in 
the  different  departments.  "47 

The  clause  in  the  Constitution48  which  asserted  that 
the  President  might  require  the  opinion  in  writing  of 
the  principal  officers  did  not  fail  to  call  forth  some 
comment.  To  Hamilton  it  appeared  i '  as  a  mere  redun- 
dancy ....  as  the  right  for  which  it  provides  would 
result  of  itself  from  the  office.  "49  To  James  Iredell, 
who  fortunately  elaborated  his  view  in  addressing 
the  North  Carolina  state  convention,  the  clause  seemed 
to  be  "in  some  degree  substituted  for  a  council.*' 
Eef erring  to  the  principal  officers,  he  said  that  "the 
necessity  of  their  opinions  being  in  writing,  will 
render  them  more  cautious  in  giving  them,  and  make 
them  responsible  should  they  give  advice  manifestly 
improper. "  Inasmuch  as  the  President  would  have 
extensive  and  important  business  to  perform,  argued 
Iredell,  he  "should  have  the  means  of  some  assist- 

« December  10.  Eeprinted  from  The  Connecticut  Courant  of  that 
date  by  P.  L.  Ford,  Essays  on  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  .... 
(1892),  p.  163. 

47  Elliot,  II,  448.     December  1. 

«  Article  II,  sec.  2. 

49  March  25,  1788.  P.  L.  Ford's  edition  of  The  Federalist  (1898), 
p.  497. 


88  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

ance  to  enable  Mm  to  discharge  his  arduous  employ- 
ment  He  can  at  no  time  want  advice,  if  he 

desires  it,  as  the  principal  officers  will  always  be  on 
the  spot."  He  concluded  that  " every  good  that  can 
be  derived  from  the  institution  of  a  council  may  be 
expected  from  the  advice  of  these  officers."1 

The  fact  that  there  was  some  complaint,  particularly 
in  the  autumn  of  1787,  because  the  Convention  had 
left  the  chief  magistrate  unprovided  with  a  council 
must  not  mislead  us.  Writing  from  Paris,  Jefferson 
expressed  this  complaint  to  several  of  his  American 
friends  after  he  had  had  an  opportunity  to  read  the 
text  of  the  new  Constitution.51  Eichard  Henry  Lee 
wished  * '  that  a  council  of  state,  or  privy  council  should 
be  appointed  to  advise  and  assist  in  the  arduous  busi- 
ness assigned  to  the  executive  powers.  "52  And  there 
were  others  who  expressed  the  same  point  of  view. 
Notwithstanding  these  opinions,  it  can  be  shown,  I 
believe,  that  there  were  a  few  minds  sufficiently  saga- 
cious and  able  to  penetrate  into  the  probable  workings 
of  the  new  system  of  government  to  see  that  a  council 
of  advisers  was  likely  to  come  into  existence  so  soon 
as  the  governmental  machinery  was  well  started. 
Only  those,  however,  were  capable  of  predicting  the 
future  institution  who  had  known  all  the  difficulties 
of  adjustment  by  which  the  Convention  had  been  con- 
so  Elliot,  IV,  108,  109,  110.  July  28,  1788. 

51  Jefferson  to  John  Adams,  November  13,  1787.     Jefferson  to  Car- 
michael,  December  15.     Documentary  History  of  the  Constitution,  IV, 
377,  408. 

52  Letter  of  October  16,  1787,  in  American  Museum  for  December,  II, 
557.     Cf.  Documentary  History,  IV,  387,  416. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  IDEA  8* 

fronted  in  its  considerations  over  the  problem  of  an 
executive  council  when  that  problem  had  been  defi- 
nitely presented  to  it  by  the  matured  plan  for  a  coun- 
cil of  state  which  Morris  and  his  accomplices  had 
offered. 

Although  very  unwilling  to  accept  Morris's  plan, 
Colonel  Mason  was  probably  in  favor  of  an  advisory 
executive  council.53  But  Mason  formulated  a  crude 
plan  that  could  have  satisfied  no  large  number  of 
members  of  the  Convention.  And  when  he  published 
his  "Objections"  in  the  early  autumn  of  1787,  he 
declared  explicitly  and  truly  that  the  "President  of 
the  United  States  has  no  Constitutional  Council." 
He  went  on  to  say,  however,  almost  in  the  same 
breath,  that  "a  Council  of  State  will  grow  out  of  the 
principal  officers  of  the  great  departments;  the  worst 
and  most  dangerous  of  all  ingredients, "  he  added, 
"for  such  a  Council  in  a  free  country."54  In  the  fol- 
lowing November  Governor  Clinton  of  New  York  re- 
iterated Mason's  words,  apparently  foreseeing,  like 

53  September  7,  1787.  Mason  moved  to  postpone  consideration  of  the 
clause  "and  may  require  the  opinion  in  writing  of  the  principal  officer 
in  each  of  the  Executive  Departments,"  etc.,  in  order  to  take  up  the 
following :  ' '  '  That  it  be  an  instruction  to  the  committee  of  the  states 
to  prepare  a  clause  or  clauses  for  establishing  an  executive  council,  as 
a  council  of  state  for  the  President  of  the  United  States;  to  consist  of 
six  members,  two  of  which  from  the  Eastern,  two  from  the  Middle,  and 
two  from  the  Southern  States;  with  a  rotation  and  duration  of  office 
similar  to  those  of  the  Senate;  such  council  to  be  appointed  by  the  legis- 
lature, or  by  the  Senate.'  "  Elliot,  V,  525. 

w  K.  M.  Kowland,  Life  of  George  Mason,  II,  388.  Cf.  Hid.,  p.  113. 
It  should  be  noted  that  in  the  Virginia  state  convention,  on  June  18, 
1788,  Mason  there  remarked  that  "he  did  not  disapprove  of  the  Presi- 
dent's consultation  with  the  principal  officers."  Elliot,  III,  496. 


90  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Mason,  the  possible  development  of  a  council  of  state 
out  of  the  great  officers.55 

Very  much  more  notable  are  certain  remarks  which 
can  be  found  in  the  pamphlet  by  Charles  Pinckney 
entitled  Observations  on  the  Plan  of  Government 
Submitted  to  the  Federal  Convention,  in  Philadelphia, 
on  the  28th  of  May,  1787. ,M  This  pamphlet  was  prob- 
ably printed  soon  after  the  adjournment  of  the  Con- 
vention, for  it  was  in  Madison's  hands  on  October  14, 
1787.57  There  is  no  direct  evidence  as  to  the  time  when 
it  was  written.  Although  its  statements  are  not 
always  consistent  with  the  records  of  Pinckney 's 
positions  as  taken  during  the  debates  of  the  Conven- 
tion,58 the  document  would  seem  to  afford  good  evi- 
dence of  its  author's  matured  convictions,  particularly 
on  the  subject  of  an  advisory  council  to  the  President. 

Near  the  opening  of  the  Convention  Pinckney  pro- 
posed, as  we  have  seen,  that  the  President  should  be 
given  the  right  to  advise  with  the  heads  of  the  different 
departments  "as  his  Council. "  On  August  20  he 

55 « l  Letters  of  Cato, ' '  reprinted  from  the  New  York  Journal  by  P.  L. 
Ford  in  his  Essays  on  the  Constitution,  pp.  262,  265.  The  original  refer- 
ences appeared  on  November  8  and  22,  1787. 

®>New  Forfc: — Printed  by  Francis  Childs.  No  date.  Pp.  27.  The- 
copy  I  have  used  belongs  to  the  Yale  Library.  It  bears  on  the  title-page 
this  statement:  ''By  the  Hon.  Charles  Pinckney,  Esq.,  L.  L.  D.,"  etc. 
Another  print  with  the  same  pagination  reads:  "By  Mr.  Charles  Pinck- 
ney," etc.  See  Nation,  XCIII,  164.  August  24,  1911. 

57  Writings  of  James  Madison,  V,  9. 

58  For  example,  Pinckney  first  favored  joining  the  heads  of  depart- 
ments in  a  council  of  revision,  but  he  gave  this  up,  according  to  his 
reported  statement  on  June  6.    Elliot,  V,  165.     The  plan  of  a  council  of 
revision  of  principal  officers  appears  in  the  Observations,  pp.  8-9.    See  for 
a  careful  study  of  the  remnants  of  the  original  Pinckney  Plan  and  the 
Observations,  American  Historical  Review,  IX,  735  ff. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  IDEA  91 

seconded  and  probably  approved  of  Morris's  plan  for 
a  council  to  assist  the  President.  Yet  certain  casual 
statements  made  by  Pinckney  in  the  Convention  might 
be  taken  to  indicate  that  he  appreciated  the  difficulties 
of  having  any  such  combination  as  the  heads  of  depart- 
ments formally  recognized  in  the  Constitution  for  a 
very  specific  purpose.59  However,  referring  in  his 
pamphlet  to  four  departments — foreign  affairs,  war, 
treasury,  and  admiralty  "when  instituted" — he  said 
of  the  President:  "He  will  have  a  right  to  consider 
the  principals  of  these  Departments  as  his  Council, 
and  to  require  their  advice  and  assistance,  whenever 
the  duties  of  his  office  shall  render  it  necessary.  By 
this  means, "  added  Pinckney,  "our  Government  will 
possess  what  it  has  always  wanted,  but  never  yet  had, 
a  Cabinet  Council.  An  institution, ' '  he  concluded, 
"essential  in  all  Governments,  whose  situation  or 
connections  oblige  them  to  have  an  intercourse  with 

other  powers ' m 

This  remarkable  characterization  of  an  institution 
unrecognized  by  the  Constitution,  an  institution  which 
has  become  a  familiar  feature  of  American  govern- 
ment, can  hardly  have  been  a  mere  suggestion  or 
chance  prophecy  on  Pinckney 's  part.  Although  among 
the  youngest  members  of  the  Convention,  he61  had  been 
active  in  the  Continental  Congress  in  1786.  He  took 

59  Elliot,  V,  165,  349,  442. 

60  Observations,  p.  10. 

61  Pinckney  was  born  in  1758.     J.  B.  O'Neall,  Biographical  Sketches 
of  the  Bench  and  Bar  of  South  Carolina  (1859),  II,  138  ff.    John  Francis 
Mercer  of  Maryland  was  born  May  17,  1759.     James  Mercer  Garnett, 
Biographical  Sketch  of  Hon.  James  Mercer  Garnett  ....  with  Mercer- 


92  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

part  at  that  time  in  the  consideration  of  certain  defi- 
ciencies of  the  government  of  the  Confederation. 
Moreover,  his  interest  in  the  particular  problem  of 
sustaining  the  central  government  must  then  have  been 
stimulated;  and  his  ingenuity  in  helping  to  solve  the 
problem  was  put  to  the  test,  for  he  acted  as  chairman 
of  an  important  committee  which  worked  over  the 
whole  matter  and  made  a  report  of  it.62  After  this 
notable  experience  and  his  work  as  a  member  of  the 
Convention,  Pinckney's  clear  and  confident  character- 
ization may  reasonably  be  taken  to  indicate  not  only 
that  he  appreciated  the  necessity  of  such  a  body  in  aid 
of  the  President,  but  also  that  he  regarded  it  as  almost 
assured  by  the  common — and  constitutional — assump- 
tion that  there  would  be  principal  officers  over  the 
great  departments. 

Pinckney's  application  of  the  English  phrase  "cabi- 
net council ' '  to  the  combination  of  officers  that  he  fore- 
saw in  the  new  scheme  of  government  is  probably  the 
first  that  can  be  found.63  The  phrase  may  be  the  casual 
feature  in  the  passage.  On  the  other  hand,  it  probably 
indicates  Pinckney's  familiarity  with  the  workings  of 
the  British  Constitution.64  At  any  rate  at  a  time  when 
most  men  were  probably  accustomed  to  term  such  a 
council  either  "council  of  state "  or  "privy  council," 

Garnett  and  Mercer  Genealogies  (1910),  p.  53.  Jonathan  Dayton  of  New 
Jersey  was  born  on  October  16,  1760.  Cyclopaedia  of  American  Biog- 
raphy, II,  113. 

62  American  Historical  Review,  IX,  738. 

63  Paul  Leicester  Ford  calls  this  ''the  first  suggestion  of  the  body 
unrecognized  by  the  Constitution. ' '    Nation,  LX,  459.    June  13,  1895. 

**  Pinckney  's  longest  recorded  speech  in  the  >Convention  shows  rather 
unusual  knowledge  of  the  English  government.  Elliot,  V,  233  ff.  June  25. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  IDEA  93 

it  is  extraordinary  and  notable  that  the  young  South 
Carolina  statesman  should  have  ventured  to  employ 
the  phrase  which  became  in  the  course  of  years  perma- 
nently attached  to  the  advisory  body  of  the  American 
President.65  Yet  in  this  very  connection  it  should  be 
observed  that  when,  in  January,  1788,  James  Iredell 
of  North  Carolina  attempted  to  answer  Colonel 
Mason 's  particular  objection  to  a  possible  council 
of  state  developing  out  of  the  principal  officers  in 
combination,  he  reminded  his  readers  that  the  single 
truly  efficient  council  in  the  English  government  was 
"one  formed  of  their  great  officers."  "Notwithstand- 
ing their  important  Constitutional  Council,"  he  added, 
' l  every  body  knows  that  the  whole  movements  of  their 
government,  where  a  council  is  consulted  at  all,  are 
directed  by  their  Cabinet  Council,  composed  entirely 
of  the  principal  officers  of  the  great  departments."66 
Iredell  certainly  would  seem  to  have  had  no  special 
fear  of  a  body  so  composed.  He  was,  moreover,  clearly 
appreciative  of  these  two  facts :  first,  that  the  English 
Privy  Council  was  at  the  time  rather  a  belated  sur- 
vival; second,  that  the  English  Cabinet  Council  was 
already  understood  by  well-informed  men  to  be  the 
important  source  of  directive  power  in  the  English 
state. 

65  An  English  correspondent  of  Washington,  writing  from  Avignon, 
on  August  20,  1787,  enclosed  a  plan  of  government  for  the  new  nation. 
This  plan  reflects  many  peculiarities  of  the  British  system,  and  particu- 
larly recommends  a  "cabinet  council, "  to  be  composed  of  the  chief 
magistrate  and  "any  four  of  the  great  officers  of  State. "    Documentary 
History,  IV,  264. 

66  P.  L.  Ford,  Pamphlets,  p.  348. 


94  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

From  such  evidence,  then,  as  can  be  assembled,  we 
may  conclude  that  George  Mason  of  Virginia  and  per- 
haps Governor  Clinton  of  New  York  perceived  with 
some  degree  of  clearness  in  the  autumn  of  1787  the 
probability  that  a  council  to  the  future  President 
would  arise  in  a  combination  of  the  principal  officers. 
Charles  Pinckney  was  convinced  that  there  would  be 
such  a  body :  he  characterized  it  adequately  and  named 
it — as  it  proved — with  startling  accuracy.  Yet  the 
importance  as  well  as  the  workings  of  such  a  council, 
were  it  to  take  shape,  would  depend  inevitably  upon 
numerous  future  contingencies  all  but  quite  indeter- 
minable— the  laws  creating  the  departments,  the  num- 
ber of  principal  officers  that  Congress  might  decide 
upon,  and  the  unknown  human  factors  involved. 


NOTE 

THE  PHKASE  "PmvY  COUNCIL"  IN  THE  COLONIES: 

It  is  almost  impossible  to  find  references  in  print  to 
the  usage  of  " Privy  Council"  as  applied  to  an  Ameri- 
can body  in  colonial  times.  Professor  Herbert  L. 
Osgood  cites  from  the  sources  one  usage  of  the  phrase 
as  applied  to  the  Governor's  Council  in  Maryland. 
This  council,  he  writes,  ' i  stood  toward  the  governor  in 
a  relation  analogous  to  that  occupied  by  the  privy  coun- 
cil toward  the  king  in  England.  In  1642  the  council 
received  for  the  first  time  a  commission  distinct  from 
that  of  the  governor.  In  this  it  was  called  'our  privie 
Councell  within  our  said  Province  of  Maryland,  '•  and 
its  members  were  empowered  to  meet  with  the  gover- 
nor when  and  where  he  should  direct,  'to  treate,  con- 
sult, deliberate  and  advise  of  all  matters,  causes  and 

things  which  shall  be  discovered  unto  you '  The 

peculiar  function  of  the  council,  therefore,  was  to 
advise  the  governor  and  through  him  the  proprietor, 
and  without  that  advice  the  governor  should  not  act. ' ' 
The  American  Colonies  in  the  Seventeenth  Century,  II, 
65-66. 

Quite  the  best  description  that  I  can  discover  of  the 
colonial  council  of  state  has  been  given  by  Dr.  N.  D. 
Mereness  in  his  Maryland  as  a  Proprietary  Province, 
pp.  174-184.  Mr.  Clarence  P.  Gould  of  Johns  Hopkins 
University  has  been  kind  enough  to  furnish  me  with 
additional  information  from  the  Maryland  archives  as 
follows : 


96  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

The  privy  council  as  used  in  Mereness  means  only  the  ordi- 
nary council  of  the  colony — the  same  body  as  the  Upper 
House,  but  sitting  with  the  governor  as  a  council  of  state. 
.  .  .  .  The  term  " privy  council"  is  sometimes  applied  to  this 
body,  but  merely  "the  council"  and  "the  council  of  state" 
are  more  common.  "Privy  council"  was  used  more  fre- 
quently in  the  early  days  of  the  colony.  Early  commissions 
always  read  "to  be  of  our  Privy  Council"  or  "to  be  of  our 
Privy  Council  of  State"  (Archives,  I,  114,  131,  201,  240,  242, 
251,  etc.).  In  1669  was  framed  an  "Oathe  of  a  Councellor 
of  State,"  but  in  the  oath  the  members  of  the  council  were 
referred  to  as  "privy  Councellors"  (Arch.,  V,  41).  Again, 
a  revenue  act  of  1671  provides  for  "the  Privy  Council  of  the 
Lord  and  Proprietary  of  this  Province"  (Quoted  L.  H.  J., 
May  21,  1739).  Later  on  councillors'  commissions  cease  to 
be  entered  in  full,  and  I  have  not  been  able  to  find  what  the 
proprietor  himself  continued  to  call  the  council.  Procla- 
mations, however,  read  "with  the  Advice  of  his  Lordship's 
Council  of  State,"  and  the  two  Houses  usually  spoke  of  it  as 
the  "council"  or  the  "council  of  state"  (L.  H.  J.,  1739,  May 
4,  May  24,  etc.).  Private  Letter  of  November  7,  1910. 

From  this  it  will  be  clear  that  the  Privy  Council  and 
the  Council  of  State  were  identical  in  Maryland. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  PRINCIPAL  OFFICES  IN  1789 

ALTHOUGH  it  did  not  expressly  enjoin  executive 
departments,  the  Constitution  clearly  contem- 
plated principal  officers  or  heads  of  departments. 
Accordingly  the  first  Congress  organized  under  the 
new  system  took  into  consideration  early  in  its  first 
session  the  subject  of  departmental  arrangements. 


The  congressional  debates  on  the  establishment  of 
departments  which  were  opened  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives on  May  19,  1789,  revealed  tendencies  mak- 
ing toward  administrative  unity  and  hence  real  execu- 
tive efficiency  on  the  part  of  the  President.  The  dis- 
cussions over  the  places  and  functions  of  the  Secre- 
taries served  to  bring  the  administrative  power  of  the 
President  for  the  first  time  distinctly  into  view.  Hence 
the  large  historic  import  of  these  discussions.  In  them 
the  guiding  influence  of  James  Madison  on  the  course 
of  the  debates  is  particularly  apparent.  Several 
matters  became  clear. 

In  the  first  place,  the  tenure  of  office  of  the  Secre- 
taries, quite  unprovided  for  by  the  Constitution,  was 
settled  as  being  at  the  pleasure  of  the  appointing 
power.  Again,  the  appointing  power  was  interpreted, 
after  much  discussion,  as  including  the  power  of 


98  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

removal,  the  Senate  having  merely  a  negative  over 
appointments.  With  the  power  of  removal  in  his 
hands  it  was  felt  that  the  President  was  likely  to  be 
a  stronger  director  and  more  efficient  supervisor  of 
the  national  administration,  for  the  power  of  removal 
helped  to  give  the  chief  magistrate  that  control  over 
the  Secretaries  and  certain  other  officers,  without 
which  he  could  have  been  in  no  effective  way  respon- 
sible, as  he  was  intended  to  be  by  the  makers  of  the 
Constitution,  for  the  entire  executive  department.1 
And  finally  confidence  between  President  and  principal 
officers  was  seen  by  a  few  men  to  be  essential  to  suc- 
cessful administration. 

The  evidence  on  this  last  point  is  peculiarly  perti- 
nent to  our  inquiry.  "Without  a  confidence  in  the 
executive  department,"  remarked  Egbert  Benson  of 
New  York,  "its  operation  would  be  subject  to  per- 
petual discord. "  Speaking  of  the  place  of  the  Presi- 
dent, Fisher  Ames  of  Massachusetts  said:  "The  only 
bond  between  him  and  those  he  employs  is  the  confi- 
dence he  has  in  their  integrity  and  talents ;  when  that 
confidence  ceases,  the  principal  ought  to  have  power 
to  remove  those  whom  he  can  no  longer  trust  with 
safety."  Others  spoke  in  a  similar  strain.  Elbridge 
Gerry  of  Massachusetts,  watchful  of  the  rights  of  the 
states  and  dreading  executive  prerogative  and  any- 

i  Annals  of  Congress,  I,  394  ff.  Madison  to  E.  Eandolph  (May  31, 
1789)  in  Writings  of  James  Madison,  V,  373.  The  debate  has  been  care- 
fully analyzed  with  special  reference  to  the  appointing  power  by 
Professor  Lucy  M.  Salmon  in  her  History  of  the  Appointing  Power  of 
the  President  in  the  Papers  of  the  American  Historical  Association,  I, 
305-313. 


THE  PRINCIPAL  OFFICES  IN  1789  99 

thing  suggesting  possible  absolutism  in  the  federal 
headship,  was  peculiarly  prophetic.  He  reminded  his 
colleagues  in  the  House  that,  not  satisfied  with  having 
made  the  Secretaries  * '  the  creatures  of  the  law, ' '  they 
were  "making  them  the  mere  creatures  of  the  Presi- 
dent. "  He  was  himself  satisfied  that  the  Secretaries 
would  become  "a  set  of  ministers  ....  to  hold  the 
reins  of  government. ' '  To  the  people  he  felt  sure  that 
the  principal  officers  would  appear  as  "consequential 
persons. "  "These  officers,"  declared  Gerry,  "bearing 
the  titles  of  minister  at  war,  minister  of  state,  minister 
for  the  finances,  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  and  how 
many  more  ministers  I  cannot  say,  will  be  made  neces- 
sary to  the  President. ' '  He  concluded  that  in  fact  the 
President  "will  be  inclined  to  place  more  confidence 
in  them  than  in  the  Senate. " 2  In  this  last  sentiment 
Gerry  was  really  close  to  the  view  of  his  former  col- 
league in  the  Philadelphia  Convention,  George  Mason, 
when,  in  September,  1787,  Mason  had  expressed  his 
fear  lest  a  council  of  state  would  grow  out  of  the  prin- 
cipal officers  of  the  great  departments.3 

Although  neither  Gerry  nor  any  one  else  who  took 
part  in  the  long  debates  of  1789  said  directly  that  the 
President  and  heads  of  departments  were  likely  to 
form  a  council,  yet  the  stray  evidence  just  assembled 
would  seem  to  give  ground  for  inferring  that  the 
thought  of  such  a  combination  as  no  remote  possi- 
bility was  occasionally  near  the  surface  of  the  debates. 

As  ideas  matured  under  Madison's  able  guidance, 

2  Annals  of  Congress,  I,  403,  492,  493,  527. 

3  See  chapter  III,  supra,  p.  89. 


100  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

the  House  of  Representatives  proved  to  be  willing  to 
arrange  for  the  organization  of  three  separate  depart- 
ments— foreign  affairs  (or  state),  war,  treasury— 
exactly  the  number  that  there  had  been  under  the  old 
government  of  the  Confederation  since  1781.  Over 
every  one  of  these  departments  it  was  finally  decided 
to  place  a  single  chief  officer.  Naval  affairs,  it  should 
be  said,  were  transferred  from  the  old  Treasury  Board, 
in  whose  charge  they  had  been  since  1785,  to  the  care 
of  the  Secretary  of  War.4  An  unsuccessful  effort 
under  the  lead  of  John  Vining  of  Delaware,  one  of  the 
younger  members  of  the  House,  was  made  to  establish 
a  fourth  department  of  domestic  or  home  affairs.5 

II 

The  statutes6  which  established  the  three  depart- 
ments revealed  certain  differences  that  should  not  be 
overlooked.  Only  the  Departments  of  State  and  War 
were  termed  "  executive. ' '  Their  Secretaries  were 
apparently  intended  to  be  solely  responsible  and  sub- 
ordinate to  the  President.  The  Department  of  the 
Treasury,  on  the  other  hand,  may  have  been  intended 
to  be  within  easy  reach  or  control  of  the  legislature. 
The  point  is  worth  a  moment's  consideration. 

According  to  the  express  language  of  the  law,  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  to  "make  report  and 
give  information  to  either  branch  of  the  legislature, 

^Paullin,  "Early  Naval  Administration  under  the  Constitution"  in 
Proceedings  of  the  U.  S.  Naval  Institute,  September,  1906,  XXXII, 
1001  ff. 

5  Annals  of  Congress,  I,  385,  386,  412,  692-695  (passim"). 

6  1  Statutes  at  Large,  pp.  28,  49,  65,  68. 


THE  PRINCIPAL  OFFICES  IN  1789  101 

in  person  or  in  writing,  as  he  may  be  required,  respect- 
ing all  matters  referred  to  him  by  the  Senate  or  House 
of  Representatives,  or  which  shall  appertain  to  his 
office. ' '  There  was  not  a  word  in  the  statute  concern- 
ing the  President's  power  of  direction,  although  the 
President  must  appoint  the  Secretary  to  the  headship 
of  a  department  in  accordance  with  the  Constitution. 
While,  then,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  like  the 
two  other  Secretaries,  was  certainly  responsible  to  the 
President,  he  was  apparently  intended  to  be  held  in 
some  sort  of  restraint  by  the  legislature,  for  he  was 
subject  at  any  moment  to  the  legislature's  call. 

In  the  absence  of  direct  evidence,  there  cannot  be 
much  doubt  that  the  peculiar  position  in  which  the  law 
of  September  2,  1789,  left  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury, was  largely  due  to  general  recognition  of  the 
force  of  popular  tradition  and  colonial  precedent  in  the 
matter  of  financial  administration.  Heretofore,  both 
in  the  colonies  and  in  the  states  of  the  Revolutionary 
epoch,  financial  administration  had  been  all  but  com- 
pletely within  control  of  the  popular  bodies.  One  of 
the  best-informed  students  of  colonial  practices  has 
written  that  "by  the  close  of  Anne's  reign,  the  colonial 
assemblies  were,  with  few  exceptions,  enforcing  their 
claim  not  merely  to  lay  taxes  and  determine  expendi- 
tures, but  also  to  appoint  the  chief  financial  officer  of 
the  province. ' >7  In  the  two  mature  plans8  for  a  consti- 

?E.  B.  Greene,  Provincial  America,  1690-1740  (Amer.  Nation  Series, 
vol.  6),  p.  77.  Cf.  E.  P.  Tanner,  The  Province  of  New  Jersey,  pp.  393, 
397,  400,  430,  433. 

8  Those  of  August  6  and  September  12.  Documentary  History,  III, 
449,  724. 


102  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

tution  which  marked  the  later  stages  of  the  work  of 
the  Philadelphia  Convention,  it  was  proposed  that 
Congress  should  have  the  appointment  of  a  treasurer 
of  the  United  States.  "The  people, "  urged  King 
and  Gorham  of  Massachusetts,  "are  accustomed  and 
attached  to  that  mode  of  appointing  treasurers. ' r  But 
at  the  last  moment  it  was  decided  to  allow  the  Presi- 
dent to  appoint  the  nation's  treasurer — an  innovation, 
asserted  King  and  his  colleague,  which  "will  multiply 
objections  to  the  system. "  Perhaps  the  arrangement 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury's  position  in  1789 
under  the  restraint  of  Congress  was  partly  owing  to 
the  action  of  the  Convention  in  allowing  the  President 
to  name  the  national  treasurer. 

For  many  years  after  1789  the  peculiar  place  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  a  subject  of  occasional 
comment.  As  early  as  April  2,  1792,  Jefferson  alluded 
to  it  in  his  "Anas,"  casting  a  characteristic  slur  in 
this  connection  upon  Alexander  Hamilton,  his  unbe- 
loved  colleague.10  In  one  way  or  another  the  subject 
came  to  the  attention  of  every  President  before  Jack- 
son. [The  law,  which  allowed  the  head  of  the  financial 
department  to  report  annually  and  at  other  times  to 
Congress,  was  sure  to  interfere  with  real  unity  of 
administration,  especially  when  Congress  desired  to 
get  a  report  from  the  Secretary  without  previous  com- 
munication with  the  President.  Both  Madison  and 
Monroe  during  their  terms  as  Presidents  experienced 

9  Elliot,  Delates,  V,  542. 

10  Writings  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  I,  190. 


TEE  PRINCIPAL  OFFICES  IN  1789  103 

special  difficulties  because  of  the  calls  of  Congress  on 
their  Secretaries  of  the  Treasury.n\ 

President  Jackson  left  his  contemporaries  under  no 
doubts  as  to  his  theory  of  the  relation  existing  between 
him  and  any  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  whom  he  might 
choose  to  associate  with  him.  The  episode  which 
brought  his  theory  into  prominence  was  the  so-called 
removal  of  the  deposits.  In  connection  with  the  epi- 
sode, Jackson,  in  September,  1833,  developed  his  view 
of  the  proper  functions  and  status  of  a  cabinet  officer 
such  as  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  by  virtually 
saying  that,  although  the  Secretary  might  be  required 
by  law  to  report  to  Congress  instead  of  to  the  Presi- 
dent, the  peculiar  provision  was  never  meant  to  exempt 
a  Secretary  from  his  obligation  to  sustain  the  Presi- 
dent in  all  matters  of  public  policy.12  The  matter 
assumed  almost  at  once  a  partisan  aspect.  Opponents 
of  Jackson's  policy  toward  the  Bank — such  men,  for 
examples,  as  Henry  Clay  and  Horace  Binney — denied 
that  the  Treasury  was  an  "executive  department." 
Samuel  J.  Tilden,  then  a  youth  just  out  of  his  teens, 
undertook  to  defend  Jackson's  view.  Basing  his  argu- 
ment upon  a  well-selected  number  of  historic  incidents, 
Tilden  made  out  a  plausible  case  that  since  Hamilton's 
day  the  Treasury  had  usually  been  considered  an 
executive  department.13  It  was  the  same  conclusion 
which  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  put  upon 

11  Memoirs  of  J.  Q.  Adams,  IV,  217,  500-502.     Cf.   Works  of  John 
Adams,  VIII,  555. 

12  Messages  and  Papers,  III,  5  ff. 

13  February  14,  3834.     Writings  and  Speeches  of  Samuel  J.  Tilden, 
ed.  John  Bigelow  (1885),  I,  27  ff. 


104  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

record  in  an  elaborate  report  read  to  the  House  on 
March  4,  1834.14 

Two  years  later,  in  1836,  an  effort  was  begun  for  the 
purpose  of  amending  the  Constitution  in  such  a  way 
as  to  allow  Congress  to  choose  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury.  And  during  the  succeeding  six  years  oppo- 
nents of  Jackson 's  executive  policy  appealed  now 
and  again  to  Congress  for  similar  amendments.15  The 
effort  was  only  one  feature  of  the  reaction  against  what 
seemed  to  be  an  unwarranted  and  high-handed  policy 
on  the  part  of  the  Democratic  party.  There  were  no 
doubt  many  sympathizers  with  the  sentiment  of  Clay 
when,  in  the  Senate,  on  January  24,  1842,  he  burst  into 
the  declaration  that  '  '  during  the  last  twelve  years,  the 
machine,  driven  by  a  reckless  charioteer  with  frightful 
impetuosity,  has  been  greatly  jarred  and  jolted,  and 
it  needs  careful  examination  and  a  thorough  repair. ' ' 
There  was  reason  in  this  sort  of  plea.  But  nothing 
in  the  way  of  legislation  ever  came  from  the  effort  to 
put  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury's  appointment  into 
the  hands  of  Congress.  Whatever  the  intent  of  the 
makers  of  the  law  of  1789,  in  practice  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  has  been  regarded  from  Jackson's 
day  as  an  officer  under  executive  control.  Moreover, 
in  the  language  of  the  later  law,  the  Department  is 

w  Niles's  Register,  XLVI,  38  ff.     (March  15,  1834.) 

15  These  efforts  may  be  followed  in  the  Congressional  Globe  under  the 
dates:  February  13,  1836,  January  2,  1838,  January  14,  1839,  December 
29,  1841,  and  January  24,  February  2,   15,  23,  28,  March  4,   21,  and 
August  30,  1842.     They  marked  several  sessions  of  the  24th,  25th  and 
27th  Congresses. 

16  Globe,  27  Cong.,  2  sess.  (1841-1842),  p.  164. 


THE  PRINCIPAL  OFFICES  IN  1789  105 

recognized  as  an  "executive  department. ' '  But  it 
should  also  be  noted  that  the  old  provision  of  1789, 
which  authorized  the  Secretary  to  "make  report,  and 
give  information  to  either  branch  of  the  legislature 
in  person  or  in  writing, "  has  not  been  altered.17 


Ill 


The  Senate  of  1789,  acting  perhaps  on  the  assump- 
tion of  a  place  in  the  new  government  analogous  to 
that  of  the  colonial  council  or  upper  house — a  body 
which  exercised  some  variety  of  judicial  functions — 
took  the  lead  in  the  business  of  organizing  a  judicial 
establishment.  Its  committee  of  eight,  Ellsworth  of 
Connecticut  acting  as  chairman,  appointed  as  early 
as  April  7,  brought  in  a  bill  which  resulted  in  the 
Judiciary  Act  of  the  following  September.18  The 
final  section  (35)  contained  a  brief  provision  for  the 
office  of  the  Attorney-General.  Aside  from  his  func- 
tion as  federal  prosecutor,  the  Attorney-General  was 
to  be  legal  adviser  to  the  President  and  heads  of 
departments.  This  arrangement  brought  him  into  the 
range  of  executive  control  and  made  him,  like  the 
Secretaries,  a  ministerial  officer.  He  was  head  of  no 
department  in  1789,  nor  indeed — as  we  shall  see  later 
on — until  1870.  His  rank,  like  his  salary,  was  dis- 
tinctly below  that  of  the  three  Secretaries.  Yet  from 

17  Revised  Statutes  (2d  ed.,  1878),  pp.  38-41.  For  a  recent  consider- 
ation of  the  place  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  our  system,  see 
Frank  J.  Goodnow,  The  Principles  of  the  Administrative  Law  of  the 
United  States  (1905),  pp.  70  ff. 

is  1  Statutes  at  Large,  pp.  92  ff.    September  24,  1789. 


106  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

the  outset  Washington  reckoned  the  Attorney-General 
as  an  intimate  adviser.19 

The  Judiciary  Act,  while  nominally  the  result  of  the 
labors  of  a  Senate  committee,  was  probably  shaped 
largely  by  the  hand  of  Oliver  Ellsworth,  its  chairman. 
It  was  Madison's  recollection — expressed  more  than 
once — that  the  Senator  from  Connecticut  drafted  the 
bill,  "and  that  it  was  not  materially  changed  in  its 
passage  into  a  law."  But  contemporary  jottings  on 
the  course  of  the  debate,  made  by  Senator  Maclay, 
himself  a  member  of  the  committee,  make  the  author- 
ship as  ascribed  to  Ellsworth  almost  a  certainty.21 

The  portion  of  the  Act  devoted  to  the  Attorney- 
General's  place  is  curiously  brief.  This  brevity  sug- 
gests the  marked  immaturity  of  the  administrative- 
judicial  system  of  the  central  government.  Indeed, 
so  far  as  the  central  government  is  concerned,  the 
office  was  an  innovation,  for  no  such  office  had  been 
known  to  the  Confederation.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
English  Attorney-Generalship,  which  doubtless  fur- 
nished the  men  of  1789  with  a  model,  was  old  and  well 
established.22  Moreover,  there  had  been  Attorneys- 
General  in  many  of  the  colonies.  In  Virginia,  for 
example,  the  office  had  been  established  some  years 

19  The  evidence  for  this  I  examine  later.     See  pp.  164ff.,  181  ff. 

20  Letters  and  other  Writings  of  James  Madison,  IV,  428.     Of.  Ibid., 
220-222. 

21  Journal  of  William  Maclay,  ed.  E.  S.  Maclay   (1890),  pp.  91,  97, 
101,  103,  105,  etc.     William  Garrott  Brown  examines  the  evidence  care- 
fully  and  presents   the   general   conclusions   admirably   in   his   Life   of 
Oliver  Ellsworth  (1905),  pp.  181  ff. 

22  Sir  William  R.  Anson,  Law  and  Custom,  Pt.  II  (2d  ed.,  1896),  pp. 
201  ff. 


THE  PRINCIPAL  OFFICES  IN  1789  107 

before  1650.  Early  in  the  eighteenth  century  the 
Virginia  Attorney-General  had  been  expected  to  reside 
at  Williamsburg,  at  the  time  the  seat  of  the  provincial 
government.23  Some  of  the  states  in  the  Revolu- 
tionary epoch  had  Attorneys-General.  And  both 
Pelatiah  Webster  in  1783  and  Gouverneur  Morris  in 
1787,  it  will  be  recalled,  included  a  leading  represen- 
tative of  the  legal  profession  in  their  separate  plans 
for  a  council. 

IV 

We  have  seen  how  Congress  provided  in  1789  for 
laws  which  called  for  the  appointments  of  three  Secre- 
taries and  an  Attorney-General.  Four  positions  were 
created,  the  occupants  of  which  were  to  be  the  assist- 
ants of  the  President.  Before  turning  to  the  next 
subject — the  factors  which  ^brought  these  officersjjito 

a  President^  council — let  us  observe  a  statement  set 

1 

down  by  Gouverneur  Morris,  and  printed  in  the  spring 
of  1789. 

The  statement  in  view  occurs  in  a  pamphlet  by 
Morris  entitled  Observations  on  the  Finances  of  the 
United  States,  in  1789.  This  pamphlet  was  partly  the 
result  of  Morris's  "maritime  meditations"  on  his 
journey  from  America  in  the  winter  of  1788,  but  it  was 
formulated  later  and  was  perhaps  influenced  by  cer- 
tain conversations  between  Morris  and  Jefferson  in 
Paris,  the  latter  our  minister  to  France.  Under  date 

23  O.  P.  Chitwood,  Justice  in  Colonial  Virginia  (Johns  Hopkins  Uni- 
versity Studies,  July-August,  1905).  It  is  worth  observing  that  the  state 
of  Connecticut  had  no  Attorney -General  until  1897.  Public  Acts  for  1897, 
chap.  191.  May  25,  1897. 


108  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

of  May  8,  1789,  Gouverneur  Morris  sent  a  copy  of  the 
pamphlet  to  his  friend,  Eobert  Morris,  once  Superin- 
tendent of  Finance.  In  it  there  occurs  this  passage : 

On  no  subject  perhaps  can  it  he  more  needful  to  take  pre- 
cautions ....  than  on  that  of  finance,  both  for  the  public 
security  and  for  the  reputation  of  the  Ministers.  It  might 
therefore  be  wise  to  provide  that  the  terms  on  which  loans 
are  to  be  made,  and  the  manner  of  making  them,  should  be 
discussed  and  decided  on,  not  only  by  the  officers  of  the 
Finance  department,  but  by  the  President  and  the  other 
principal  officers  of  State,  such  as  the  Secretary  at  War,  and 
of  Foreign  Affairs.  These  taken  together  might  be  very 
safely  entrusted  with  the  appropriation  of  the  revenue  .... 
their  determinations  would  be  secret.24 

Here  is  a  statement  from  the  pen  of  the  great  pro- 
tagonist of  the  conciliar  idea  in  the  Philadelphia  Con- 
vention. It  is  not  surprising  that  it  should  be  in 
accord  with  earlier  suggestions  as  to  the  advantages 
of  a  council  of  principal  officers.  But  it  certainly  indi- 
cates how  very  natural  was  the  conception  of  a  Presi- 
dent 's  council  just  at  the  period  of  the  active  begin- 
nings of  the  new  government  in  1789. 

2*  J.  Sparks,  Life  of  Gouverneur  Morris,  III,  3-4,  471,  476. 


NOTE 

ALLEGED  AUTHOBSHIP  OF  THE  ACT  ESTABLISHING  THE 
TBEASUBY  DEPABTMENT  : 

The  first  Congress,  on  May  21,  1789,  appointed  a 
committee  of  eleven  members  to  prepare  bills  for 
organizing  the  executive  departments.  The  committee 
consisted  of  Messrs.  Baldwin  (chairman),  Vining, 
Livermore,  Madison,  Benson,  Burke,  Fitzsimons, 
Boudinot,  Wadsworth,  Gerry  and  Cadwalader 
(Annals  of  Congress,  I,  412).  There  is  no  clue  in 
contemporary  records  to  any  other  than  the  com- 
mittee authorship  of  the  act  for  a  Treasury  Depart- 
ment. Yet  Secretary  John  Quincy  Adams,  under  date 
of  January  12,  1819,  did  not  hestitate  to  ascribe  the 
authorship  of  the  act  directly  to  Alexander  Hamilton, 
as  follows: 

The  laws  constituting  the  Departments  were  ....  founded 
upon  the  same  principle,  with  the  exception  of  the  Treasury 
Department,  the  law  to  establish  which  was  drawn  up  by 
A.  Hamilton,  who  was  himself  to  be  the  Secretary,  and  whose 
object  was  to  establish  a  direct  intercourse  between  the  mem- 
bers of  the  legislature  and  himself  for  his  own  purposes 

Memoirs  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  IV,  217. 

I  have  not  discovered  that  any  one  of  Hamilton's 
chief  biographers  takes  any  account  of  this  statement. 
Although  it  is  probably  not  deserving  of  much  cre- 
dence, yet  I  think  it  worth  citing,  for  it  is  possible  that 
in  the  course  of  time  new  evidence  on  the  subject  may 
be  brought  to  light. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  CREATION  OF  THE  CABINET:  1789-1793 

THE  Convention  had  hardly  finished  its  work  in 
September,  1787,  when  Alexander  Hamilton 
conjectured  the  probability  that  Washington  would 
be  President  in  case  the  new  form  of  government  were 
acceptable  to  the  people.  "This,"  he  added,  "will 
insure  a  wise  choice  of  men  to  administer  the  govern- 
ment and  a  good  administration.  A  good  administra- 
tion will  conciliate  the  confidence  and  affection  of  the 
people  and  perhaps  enable  the  government  to  acquire 
more  consistency  than  the  proposed  constitution  seems 
to  promise  for  so  great  a  Country. ' ' l 

By  the  summer  of  1789,  his  election  and  inaugura- 
tion having  taken  place,  and  Congress  having  by  that 
time  made  progress  in  arranging  for  the  great  depart- 
ments and  the  judicial  establishment,  Washington  was 
deeply  concerned  with  the  problem  of  surrounding 
himself  with  four  assistants,  men  qualified  in  foreign 
affairs,  in  finance,  in  army  organization,  and  in  the 
law.  The  nominations  for  these  appointments  were 
of  grave  consequence  to  the  first  chief  magistrate  as 
well  as  to  the  country.  And  in  the  matter  of  selection 
the  importance  of  a  few  guiding  principles  was  per- 
fectly apparent. 

Washington  sought  for  capable  and  efficient  men 
whose  usefulness  had  stood  the  test  of  some  experience 

1  Documentary  History,  IV,  290.  The  remarks  of  Hamilton,  from 
which  the  extract  is  quoted,  were  undated,  but  were  probably  jotted 
down  in  the  early  autumn  of  1787. 


THE  CREATION  OF  THE  CABINET  111 

in  colonial,  state,  or  continental  places.  The  whole 
Revolutionary  epoch  was  one  peculiarly  likely  to  make 
or  mar  reputations.  And  Washington  was  well  fitted 
to  judge  men  who  had  been  associated  with  him  in  the 
armies  at  that  time.  He  seems  to  have  been  especially 
desirous  of  obtaining  tried  and  worthy  men  in  the 
various  judicial  posts  under  his  control.  Moreover, 
important  places  within  his  power  of  nomination  he 
meant  to  distribute  with  due  regard  to  the  claims  of 
the  various  states — the  geographical  factor  was  not 
to  be  overlooked.  And  finally  what  has  been  termed 
political  orthodoxy — intent  to  support  the  new  sys- 
tem of  government — was  taken  into  the  account.2 

While  such  guiding  principles  were  influential  and 
to  some  extent  considered  in  the  President's  choice  of 
his  principal  officers,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
claims  of  friendship  played  an  important  part  in 
directing  Washington's  search  for  men  to  assist  him. 
Intimately  and  confidentially  associated  with  him  as 
these  men  must  be,  it  was  very  natural  that  Wash- 
ington decided  finally  to  make  three  of  the  four 
appointments  under  consideration  from  among  his 
personal  friends. 


In  the  autumn  of  1788,  several  months  before  the 
first  Congress  assembled,  men  were  gossiping  about 

2  Miss  Salmon  discusses  these  principles  carefully  in  her  study  of  the 
appointing  power.  Papers  of  the  Amer.  Hist.  Assoc.,  I,  314-319.  Cf. 
C.  R.  Fish,  The  Civil  Service  and  the  Patronage  (Harvard  Hist.  Studies, 
vol.  XI,  1905),  pp.  6-10. 


112  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

the  possible  incumbents  of  the  principal  offices.  It 
was  already  assumed  that  newly  organized  depart- 
ments of  foreign  affairs  and  war,  when  they  should 
be  arranged,  would  probably  be  placed  under  the 
supervision  of  the  old  Secretaries,  John  Jay  and 
General  Henry  Knox.  Madison,  it  was  remarked, 
might  well  be  "employed  as  minister  for  the  home 
department. ' ' 3  But  Madison's  election  to  the  first 
national  House  of  Representatives  soon  placed  him 
outside  the  range  of  popular  consideration  for  office. 
Moreover,  as  it  proved,  there  was  to  be  no  separate 
home  department  arranged  by  Congress.  Before 
Robert  Morris  was  chosen  Senator  from  Pennsylvania, 
it  was  natural  to  regard  him  as  perhaps  the  most 
available  head  of  the  Treasury  Department,  should  the 
old  Treasury  Board  be  superseded  by  a  single  Secre- 
tary. Even  while  the  problem  of  arranging  a  Treasury 
Department  was  being  discussed  by  the  House,  men 
referred  easily  to  Morris  as  an  example  of  what  a 
single  man  of  capacity  in  the  position  ought  to  be. 
"The  gentleman, "  said  Boudinot,  "had  asked  where 
a  proper  character  for  a  financier  was  to  be  found? 
America  has  seen  one  man  equal  to  the  task. "  "  We 
had  once  a  gentleman/'  remarked  Gerry,  "who  filled 
such  a  department,  and  I  believe  the  only  one  in  the 
United  States  who  had  knowledge  and  abilities  by  any 
means  competent  to  the  business. ' ' 5  There  was  no 
doubt  about  Morris  as  being  popularly  considered  the 

3  November  29,  1788.    D.  Humphreys  to  Jefferson.    Bancroft,  History 
of  the  Formation  of  the  Constitution,  II,  485  (Appendix). 
*  May  20,  1789.    Annals  of  Congress,  I,  410. 
5  Hid.,  I,  401.    See  Note  1  at  the  end  of  this  chapter. 


THE  CREATION  OF  THE  CABINET  113 

most  marked  man  for  the  headship  of  the  country's 
finances.  But  as  time  advanced,  at  latest  by  the  month 
of  July,  1789,  attention  had  more  and  more  turned 
toward  Alexander  Hamilton.  It  is  known  that  Chan- 
cellor Livingston  had  aspirations  for  the  place.  And 
John  Jay  may  possibly  for  a  time  have  considered  it 
as  within  his  range  of  ability.6 

The  appointments  of  Hamilton  and  Knox  were 
determined  upon  by  President  Washington  easily  and 
probably  in  the  early  part  of  the  summer  of  1789. 
Hamilton,  conscious  of  having  assisted  in  the  move- 
ment toward  a  new  constitution,  felt  an  obligation  to 
lend  his  aid  in  getting  the  machine  into  operation  and 
regular  motion.  We  know  from  his  own  statement 
that  he  did  not  hesitate  to  accept  the  proffer  of  the 
Treasury  headship.7  Both  men  were  on  terms  of  very 
close  intimacy  with  the  President.  Associated  with 
him  in  the  Revolution,  they  had  kept  up  a  correspond- 
ence with  him  at  intervals  ever  since.  When  Knox's 
income  was  at  a  low  ebb,  he  had  solicited  Washington's 
recommendation  to  assist  him  in  getting  a  place  in  the 
employ  of  the  government  of  the  Confederation.  And 
partly  through  Washington's  friendship  he  had  been 
appointed  Secretary  at  War  by  Congress  in  1785.8 
Knox  had  certainly  approved  himself  to  the  public  by 

6  Writings  of  James  Madison  (ed.  Hunt),  V,  303,  309,  313,  319,  324, 
370-371.     Letters  and  other  Writings  (ed.  Eives),  I,  421,  476-477,  484. 
Ill,  67.     Works  of  Alexander  Hamilton   (ed.  Lodge),  VIII,  204,  254, 
259-260.     J.  C.  Hamilton,  Republic,  IV,  504. 

7  May  2,  1797.     Dr.  A.  M.   Hamilton,  Intimate  Life  of  Alexander 
Hamilton  (1910),  pp.  14-15. 

8F.  S.  Drake,  Memorials  of  the  Society  of  the  Cincinnati  of  Massa- 
chusetts (]873),  pp.  169-173. 


114  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

his  conduct  of  the  old  department.9  In  fact,  in  respect 
to  fitness,  the  appointments  of  both  Knox  and  Ham- 
ilton were  in  accord  with  the  most  intelligent  contem- 
porary opinion. 

In  July,  1789,  Washington  was  considering  Edmund 
Randolph  of  Virginia  for  some  place  in  the  federal 
judicial  establishment.  Early  in  the  following  month, 
aided  by  the  confidential  advice  of  Madison,  he  had 
"  almost  determined "  on  the  nomination  of  Randolph 
to  the  Attorney-Generalship.10  When  the  proffer  of  the 
position  was  made  to  Randolph  late  in  September,  the 
President  then  deemed  Randolph's  acceptance  of 
it  as  "  problematical. "  The  truth  is  that  Randolph 
accepted  Washington's  offer  with  hesitation,  partly 
owing  to  the  disordered  condition  of  his  private 
affairs — a  condition  which  could  be  altered  materially 
only  by  more  of  an  income  than  he  could  expect  as 
a  low-salaried  office-holder — and  partly  because  he 
desired  to  complete  a  revision  of  the  laws  of  Virginia, 
a  task  on  which  at  the  moment  he  was  engaged.  As 
first  Attorney-General  of  the  State  of  Virginia  under 
its  new  constitution  of  1776,  and  later  as  governor  of 
that  state  who  had  naturally  acted  as  spokesman  of 
the  Virginia  delegation  in  the  Philadelphia  Conven- 
tion of  1787,  Randolph  certainly  had  a  conspicuous 
claim  to  some  sort  of  recognition  under  the  new  admin- 
istration, even  though  his  political  orthodoxy  had  not 
been  of  the  most  robust  kind.  Like  Hamilton  and 

9  Tor   example,   see   oration   of   Judge   J.   M.   Varnum,   delivered   at 
Marietta,  Ohio,  on  July  4,  1788.     In  American  Museum  for  May,  1789, 
V,  454-455. 

10  J.  Sparks,  Writings  of  George  Washington,  X,  26. 


THE  CREATION  OF  THE  CABINET  115 

Knox,  he  had  for  years  been  on  terms  of  intimate 
friendship  with  Washington.  Indeed,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  President  felt  a  real  affection  for 
him.11 

If  the  naming  of  Randolph  as  Attorney-General 
suggests  Madison's  influence,  the  naming  of  Thomas 
Jefferson  as  Secretary  of  State  shows  it  in  the  clearest 
possible  light. 

The  appointment  of  Jefferson  is  distinctly  the  most 
interesting  of  the  four  appointments  under  considera- 
tion. John  Jay  was  what  might  be  called  the  logical 
candidate  for  the  headship  of  the  country's  foreign 
affairs  in  1789.  A  man  of  relatively  large  experience 
abroad  as  well  as  one  already  known  for  his  domi- 
nating influence  on  administration  at  home  during  the 
later  years  of  the  Confederation,  and  on  friendly 
(though  hardly  intimate)  terms  with  Washington,12 
Jay  seemed  to  the  discerning  mind  of  Madison  to  be 
assured  of  the  position  in  the  early  summer  of  1789.13 
According,  however,  to  the  best  available  authority  on 
Jay's  life — that  of  his  son — Washington  gave  to  Jay 
the  choice  of  "any  office  he  might  prefer."  And  so, 
at  his  own  request,  Jay  was  named  as  Chief  Justice 
of  the  Supreme  Court.14  This  decision  of  Jay  probably 
led  Washington  directly  to  the  consideration  of 
Thomas  Jefferson. 

11  Writings  of  George   Washington    (ed.  W.  C.  Ford),  XI,  432-434, 
450-470.     M.  D.  Conway,  Omitted  Chapters  in  the  Life  and  Papers  of 
Edmund  Randolph  (1888),  pp.  129  ff.    J.  C.  Hamilton,  EepuUic,  IV,  31. 

12  W.  C.  Ford,  George  Washington,  Memorial  ed.  (1900),  II,  163. 

13  Letters  and  other  Writings  of  James  Madison  (ed.  Eives),  I,  476, 
477,  483. 

i*W.  Jay,  Life  of  John  Jay  (1833),  I,  274. 


116  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Perhaps  Jay  helped  to  turn  the  President's  atten- 
tion to  Jefferson.  It  seems  most  probable,  however, 
that  Madison  was  the  directive  factor  in  the  situation. 
He  certainly  did  all  that  he  could  to  bring  Jefferson 
into  a  mood  to  accept  the  place  after  it  had  been 
offered  to  him.  Madison  had  been  for  years  on  terms 
of  the  closest  friendship  with  Jefferson.  He  had  kept 
Jefferson  in  France  intimately  informed  of  the  prog- 
ress of  events  in  the  United  States  ever  since  Jeffer- 
son's departure  in  1784.  And  in  respect  to  the  work 
of  the  Philadelphia  Convention  and  the  years  just 
following,  Madison  was  Jefferson's  chief  source  of 
information.  In  May,  1789,  Madison  had  sounded 
Jefferson  for  the  apparent  purpose  of  testing  Jeffer- 
son's willingness  to  accept  a  possible  home  appoint- 
ment under  the  new  government.  While  both  Jay  and 
Madison  were  relied  on  by  Washington  for  counsel 
during  the  momentous  summer  of  1789,  it  seems  very 
probable  that  Madison's  high  regard  for  Jefferson  and 
his  well-known  intimacy  with  him  made  Madison  the 
real  source  of  any  special  information,  apart  from 
Jefferson's  reputation,  which  the  President  could  have 
desired.  Washington  and  Jefferson,  it  should  be 
observed,  had  never  been  on  terms  of  intimacy.  It  is 
true  that  letters  had  passed  between  them  occasion- 
ally. Long  since  Washington  had  expressed  his  regard 
for  Jefferson,  referring  to  him  as  "a  man  of  discern- 
ment and  liberality."  Moreover,  Washington  had 
eagerly  forwarded  to  Jefferson  the  Convention's 
adopted  plan  of  a  constitution  on  the  day  after  the 
Convention  adjourned,  September  18,  1787,  hoping 


THE  CREATION  OF  THE  CABINET  117 

that  he  might  be  first  to  communicate  the  document  to 
his  fellow- Virginian  acquaintance.  As  for  Jefferson's 
reputation,  it  was  conspicuously  well  established.  He 
had  been  very  useful  at  various  times  in  the  Conti- 
nental Congress.  Like  his  friend,  Edmund  Eandolph, 
he  had  been  governor  of  Virginia.  And  in  1789,  with 
Franklin  restored  to  his  native  land,  Thomas  Jefferson 
was  unquestionably  the  best-known  American  then 
resident  in  Europe.  He  was  not  only  a  man  of  intel- 
lectual accomplishments,  but  he  had  proved  himself 
as  a  practical  statesman  to  be  at  least  a  man  of  great 
promise.15 

Landing  at  Norfolk,  Virginia,  in  November,  1789, 
Jefferson  for  the  first  time  heard  of  his  appointment. 
For  over  two  months  following  he  hesitated  about 
accepting  it.  He  was  very  much  disinclined  to  have 
other  than  foreign  affairs  to  attend  to  in  connection 
with  the  Department  of  State.  While  he  was  in  a 
doubtful  mood,  Madison  visited  him  in  Virginia  for 
the  purpose,  it  would  seem,  of  trying  to  obtain  his  con- 
sent to  the  appointment.  Only  after  this  visit  and  at 
the  renewed  and  urgent  request  of  Washington, 
assured  that  the  public  was  eager  for  his  acceptance 
of  the  position,  did  Jefferson  give  a  half-hearted  con- 
sent, reluctantly  turn  his  face  from  France,  and  take 
up  his  new  task  in  New  York  City  on  March  22,  1790.16 

The  four  nominations  were  made  to  the  Senate  in 
September,  1789.  They  were  confirmed  without  delay, 

is  Bancroft,  History  of  the  Formation  of  the  Constitution,  I,  151. 
Documentary  History  of  the  Constitution,  IV,  427.  Jefferson's  Writings 
(ed.  P.  L.  Ford),  VIII,  368,  ft.  note. 

16  See  Note  2  at  the  end  of  this  chapter. 


118  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

and  commissions  were  accordingly  issued.  Hamilton 
was  first  to  enter  upon  his  duties  on  September  11, 
succeeding  the  Treasury  Board  of  three  commissioners, 
Messrs.  Walter  Livingston,  Samuel  Osgood,  and 
Arthur  Lee.  The  next  day  General  Knox,  who  had 
had  charge  of  the  old  department  of  war  since  1785, 
formally  began  his  work  under  new  direction.  Jay 
conducted  the  business  of  the  new  Department  of 
State  at  the  request  of  the  President  until  he  was 
succeeded  by  Jefferson  late  in  March,  1790.  Randolph 
began  his  service  on  February  2,  1790,17  the  day  on 
which  the  judiciary  establishment  went  into  full  opera- 
tion. Soon  after  that,  however,  he  was  obliged  to 
return  to  Virginia  on  his  wife 's  account.  He  was  thus 
so  much  delayed  that  he  actually  handed  his  resigna- 
tion of  the  Attorney-Generalship  to  Washington.  The 
resignation  was  not  accepted,  and  Randolph  was  able 
to  undertake  the  active  duties  of  his  post  in  the  month 
of  May.  Only  in  May,  1790,  with  Jefferson,  Hamilton, 
Knox,  and  Randolph  in  New  York  City,  could  the  first 
administration  be  looked  upon  as  really  assembled.18 

Here,  then,  were  the  simple  facts  previous  to  that 
variety  of  circumstances  which  were  to  induce  Wash- 
ington to  combine  his  principal  assistants  into  a  coun- 

"  W.  G.  Brown,  Oliver  Ellsworth,  p.  197. 

is  Executive  Journal  of  the  Senate,  I,  25,  26,  32-33.  M.  D.  Conway, 
Omitted  Chapters,  etc.,  pp.  133-135.  In  view  of  the  difficulty  of  access 
to  the  Senate  Executive  Journal,  I  have  found  it  most  convenient,  as  a 
rule,  on  dates  of  nominations,  etc.,  to  cite  Robert  Brent  Mosher's  Execu- 
tive "Register  (1903),  an  admirably  and  carefully  arranged  compilation. 
Mosher  's  book  contains  accurate  lists  of  all  the  Cabinets  down  to  its  date 
of  issuance,  including  records  of  all  commissions,  and  dates  when  active 
duties  were  undertaken. 


THE  CREATION  OF  THE  CABINET 

cil.  First,  the  Constitution  implied  that  there  were 
to  be  principal  officers  and  executive  departments. 
Second,  Congress  decreed  that  there  should  be  three 
departments,  and  arranged  statutes  providing  for  the 
creation  of  four  principal  officers.  Third,  Washington 
nominated  these  officers ;  and  their  appointments  were 
made  final  by  the  favoring  attitude  of  the  Senate  and 
the  issuance  of  commissions. 

Neither  the  Constitution  nor  the  law  brought  the 
principal  officers  into  a  council.  When  Senator  Henry 
Cabot  Lodge  characterized  the  Cabinet  as  ' l  statutory, ' ' 
and  declared  that  "the  law  alone  creates  the  Cabinet," 
he  was  either  mistaken  in  his  view  or  careless  in  his 
use  of  language.19  The  law  created  the  principal 
officers  or  members  of  the  Cabinet.  The  Cabinet  itself 
was  the  creation  of  President  Washington.  He  began 
the  practice  of  assembling  his  principal  officers  in 
council.  And  this  practice  became  in  the  course  of 
time  a  settled  custom.  The  simple  truth  is  that  the 
Cabinet  is  a  customary,  not  a  statutory  body. 

The  financial  requirements  especially  conspicuous 
during  Washington's  first  term,  the  problems  of  our 
commercial  and  foreign  relations,  the  frontier  ques- 
tions involving  the  need  of  an  army  as  well  as  the 
determination  of  our  attitude  toward  the  Indians  and 
to  British  and  Spanish  neighbors — all  these  and  other 
matters  called  not  only  for  the  direction  of  a  sagacious 
President,  but  also  for  the  assistance  of  well-qualified 
experts.  With  these  things  in  view,  we  may  turn  to 

w ' '  The  Senate  of  the  United  States, ' '  reprinted  in  A  Frontier  Town 
and  Other  Essays  (1906),  pp.  73-74. 


120  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

certain  features  of  the  historic  process  making  for 
executive  unity  and  force. 

II 

From  the  outset  Washington  regarded  the  principal 
officers  as  his  assistants.20  This  view  did  not  prevent 
the  President  from  consulting  others.  But  the  exer- 
cise of  his  functions  was  almost  certain  to  bring  the 
assistant  officers  into  a  council.  The  process  of  unifi- 
cation, depending  to  a  large  extent  on  personal  rela- 
tions that  very  naturally  often  escaped  record,  was 
somewhat  unconscious.  A  few  well-authenticated  facts 
will  serve  to  make  the  process  clear. 

Soon  after  the  new  government  started,  Washington 
asked  for  the  opinions  of  his  Secretaries  on  matters 
of  importance  separately,  in  conversations  for  the 
most  part  unrecorded,  or  in  writing,  in  accordance 
with  the  letter  of  the  Constitution.  From  Jefferson 
alone  there  were  at  least  a  dozen  written  opinions 
furnished  before  the  close  of  the  year,  1790.21  On  the 
first  question  of  diplomacy  which  confronted  the 
administration,  in  respect  to  a  possible  war  between 
Spain  and  Great  Britain — a  matter  that  involved  the 
point  as  to  whether  a  British  force  should  be  permitted 
to  pass  through  our  limits  of  territory  on  its  way  from 
Canada  for  the  purpose  of  attacking  the  Spanish  pos- 
sessions in  the  southwest — Washington  asked  for 
written  opinions  from  Vice-President  John  Adams  and 

20  Writings  (ed.  W.  C.  Ford),  XI,  397-398.     May  25,  1789. 

21  Jefferson,  Writings,  V,  150  ff. 


THE  CREATION  OF  THE  CABINET  121 

Chief-Justice  Jay  as  well  as  from  the  three  Secre- 
taries.22 Jay's  opinion,  although  perhaps  defensible, 
was  in  reality  an  encroachment  on  the  advisory  func- 
tion of  the  Attorney-General.23  Custom  had  not  yet 
made  the  advice  of  the  Vice-President  appear  irregu- 
lar. In  fact,  during  the  first  five  years  of  his  Presi- 
dency, Washington  occasionally  appealed  to  Adams 
for  written  advice  j24  and  at  least  once,  as  we  shall  see, 
had  Adams  summoned  to  a  meeting  of  the  Secretaries. 

On  August  22  and  again  on  August  24,  1789,  Wash: 
ington,  accompanied  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  General 
Knox,  actually  appeared  in  the  chamber  of  the  Senate 
to  advise  with  the  Senators  in  the  matter  of  a  proposed 
treaty  with  the  Southern  Indians.  According  to 
Maclay 's  well-known  record,  the  President  seemed 
ready  "to  tread  on  the  necks  of  the  Senate "  and  to 
"bear  down"  the  Senators'  deliberations  "with  his 
personal  authority  and  presence.  Form  alone," 
declared  Maclay,  "will  be  left  us.  This  will  not  do 
with  Americans.  But  let  the  matter  work ;  it  will  soon 
cure  itself. ' '  And  it  did  so,  for  there  is  no  record  of 
any  similar  meeting  in  later  history. 

However  prejudiced  Maclay  may  have  been  in  his 
account  of  the  incident,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt 

22  The  United  States  and  Spain  (ed.  W.  C.  Ford,  Brooklyn:  1890),  pp. 
7,  16,  17,  18,  43,  106. 

23  Mosher,  Executive  Register,  pp.  93-94.     Here  is  revealed  a  similar 
encroachment,    when    Chief -Justice    Marshall,    on    February    20,    1821, 
enlightened  President  Monroe  as  to  the  time  when  Monroe  should  take 
the  oath  of  office,  the  4th  of  March,  1821,  falling  on  a  Sunday. 

24  J.  Adams's  WorTcs,  VIII,  489,  496,  515.    May  17,  1789;  August  27, 
1790;  January  8,  1794. 

25  Journal  (ed.  E.  S.  Maclay),  p.  131. 


122  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

that  the  ineffectiveness  of  any  such  meeting  became 
once  and  for  all  evident  to  President,  Secretary,  and 
Senators.  The  very  ineffectiveness  of  the  method 
must  have  tended  to  make  the  President  more  depend- 
ent upon  his  personal  assistants,  the  heads  of  depart- 
ments and  the  Attorney-General,  when  the  business 
of  the  government  became  in  time  very  complicated. 
As  for  the  incident  itself,  it  was  not  without  points  of 
resemblance  to  experiences  between  the  colonial  gov- 
ernors and  their  councils.26  But  we  may  be  quite  sure 
that  neither  Washington  nor  Knox  was  aware  of  any 
precedents  for  their  conduct  in  entering  the  upper 
house.  The  President  acted  upon  the  assumption  of 
a  clear  constitutional  privilege — a  privilege,  moreover, 
which  is  recognized  to-day  among  the  standing  rules 
of  the  Senate,  where  provision  is  made  for  occasions 
when  the  President  "  shall  meet  the  Senate  ....  for 
Executive  business."27 

Twice — in  January,  1790,  and  again  in  November, 
1792 — the  problem  arose  as  to  whether  the  Secretaries 
were  to  obtain  hearings  before  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. In  the  first  instance  Hamilton  was  ready 
and  even  desirous  to  present  his  "Report  on  Public 
Credit"  in  person,  in  accordance  with  the  statute 
creating  his  position.  The  House  refused  to  permit 
him  to  appear  before  it.28  In  the  second  instance  there 
was  some  effort  on  the  part  of  certain  members  of  the 
House  to  get  both  Knox  and  Hamilton  before  that 

26  See  Note  3  at  the  end  of  this  chapter. 

27  Senate   Manual    (edition   of   February   5,   1905).     Standing  Bule 
xxxvi. 

28  Annals  of  Congress,  I,  1079,  1081.    II,  1446,  1516,  1639,  etc. 


THE  CREATION  OF  THE  CABINET  123 

body  in  connection  with  a  discussion  of  the  failure  of 
St.  Glair's  expedition  against  the  Indians.  Inasmuch 
as  feeling  ran  high  on  this  subject,  it  was  perhaps 
fortunate  that  the  House  again  refused  to  permit  the 
Secretaries  to  appear.  It  was,  at  any  rate,  strongly 
urged  by  Madison  in  this  latter  case  that  a  precedent 
might  be  established  whitfh  would  involve  perplexing 
consequences  in  the  future.29 

Thus  circumstances  tended,  in  the  first  place,  to  keep 
President  and  Senate  apart  in  matters  calling  for 
advice.  In  the  second  place,  they  circumscribed  the 
positions  of  the  Secretaries  in  such  a  way  that  inevi- 
tably the  Secretaries  regarded  themselves  as  essen- 
tially and  in  most  respects  belonging  to  the  Executive. 
Accordingly  these  very  circumstances,  it  may  be 
assumed,  helped  to  unify  the  President  and  his  per- 
sonal advisers. 

In  1791  we  find  the  earliest  evidence  on  what  came 
to  be  called  cabinet  meetings.  Congress  having 
adjourned  in  March,  Washington  left  Philadelphia  for 
a  tour  in  the  South.  Spending  several  days  at  Mount 
Vernon  on  the  way,  he  addressed  a  letter  to  the  three 
Secretaries  under  date  of  April  4.  He  wrote :  '  '  I  have 
to  express  my  wish,  if  any  serious  and  important  cases 
(of  which  the  probability  is  but  too  strong)  should 
arise  during  my  absence,  that  the  Secretaries  for  the 
Departments  of  State,  Treasury,  and  War,  may  hold 

29 Hid.,  2  Cong.,  2  sess.  (1792-1793),  pp.  679-722.  November  13-21, 
1792.  For  a  careful  study  of  these  matters,  see  a  paper  by  Miss  Ma 
L.  Hinsdale  entitled  ''The  Cabinet  and  Congress:  An  Historical 
Inquiry,"  in  Proceedings  of  the  American  Political  Science  Assoc. 
(1905),  II,  127-135. 


124  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

consultations  thereon,  to  determine  whether  they  are 
of  such  a  nature  as  to  demand  my  personal  attendance 

at  the  seat  of  government Presuming  that  the 

Vice-President  will  have  left  the  seat  of  government 
for  Boston,  I  have  not  requested  his  opinion  to  be  taken 
on  the  supposed  emergency;  should  it  be  otherwise, 
I  wish  him  also  to  be  consulted. '  ?3°  In  accordance  with 
the  suggestion,  there  was  a  meeting  on  April  11.  The 
Vice-President  and  three  Secretaries  were  present. 
Jefferson  made  a  careful  report  of  it  in  a  letter  to 
Washington.  Loans,  commerce,  foreign  relations, 
appointments,  frontier  troubles  with  the  Indians,  and 
other  subjects  all  came  into  the  discussions.  At  inter- 
vals of  about  a  fortnight  during  his  absence  that 
spring,  the  Secretary  of  State  kept  the  President 
informed  of  the  course  of  events,  both  domestic  and 
foreign.  But  Jefferson  made  no  statement  as  to  hold- 
ing another  meeting  of  the  Secretaries.31 

If  the  evidence  of  the  "Anas"  may  be  trusted  in 
this  connection,  this  was  the  single  occasion  on  which 
Vice-President  Adams  was  ever  asked  to  attend  a 
cabinet  meeting.32  It  is  true  that,  at  the  opening  of 
John  Adams's  administration,  friends  of  Jefferson, 
then  Vice-President,  were  anxious  that  he  should  be 
admitted  to  the  meetings  of  Adams's  advisers.  But 
Jefferson's  theory  of  the  office  would  not  have  allowed 
the  practice.  t '  I  consider  my  office  as  constitutionally 
confined  to  legislative  functions, ' '  he  wrote  to  Elbridge 

30  Washington 's  Diary  from  1789  to  1791  (ed.  B.  J.  Lossing),  p.  162. 
Writings,  XII,  34,  foot  note,  35. 

31  Writings,  V,  320  ff. 

32  Jefferson,  Writings,  I,  165. 


^  THE  CREATION  OF  THE  CABINET  125 

Gerry  on  May  13,^1797,  "and  ....  I  could  not  take  any 
part  whatever  in  executive  consultations,  even  were  it 
proposed."33 

Although  President  Washington  had  taken  time  to 
arrange  the  business  of  the  departments  before  leav- 
ing Philadelphia,  apparently  it  had  not  occurred  to 
him  to  suggest  meetings  of  his  assistants  until  he  was 
well  on  his  way  southwards.  Was  his  failure  to  speak 
of  the  Attorney-General  a  mere  oversight!  It  is 
impossible  to  say.  It  may  have  been  simply  that  the 
President  was  aware  that  no  legal  problem  was  likely 
to  arise  which  would  require  Randolph's  judgment. 
At  any  rate  the  first  recorded  "cabinet"  meeting 
seems  to  have  been  suggested  in  a  singularly  casual 
manner. 

In  1792  there  are  several  clear  records  of  "cabinet" 
meetings.  Thomas  Jefferson  has  left  some  account 
of  two  of  these,  giving  a  few  details.  The  first  meet- 
ing was  described  as  follows : 

Mar.  31.  A  meeting  at  the  P's,  present  Th:  J.,  A.  H.,  H.  K. 
&  R[andolph]  The  subject  was  the  resoln  of  the  H.  of  Repr. 
of  Mar.  27.  to  appt  a  commee  to  inquire  into  the  causes  of  the 
failure  of  the  late  expdn  under  Maj.  Genl.  St.  Glair  with 
power  to  call  for  such  persons,  papers  &  records  as  may  be 
necessary  to  assist  their  inquiries.  The  commee  had  written 
to  Knox  for  the  original  letters,  instns,  &c.  The  President 
he  had  called  us  to  consult,  merely  because  it  was  the  first 
example,  &  he  wished  that  so  far  as  it  shd  become  a  precedent, 
it  should  be  rightly  conducted.  He  neither  acknowledged 
nor  denied,  nor  even  doubted  the  propriety  of  what  the  house 

33  Hid.,  VII,  120.  Life  and  Correspondence  of  Eufus  King  (ed. 
Charles  E.  King),  II,  167. 


126  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

were  doing,  for  he  had  not  thought  upon  it We  were 

not  prepared  &  wished  time  to  think  &  enquire.34 

Taking  time  to  consider  the  problems,  the  Secretaries 
and  the  Attorney-General  came  together  once  more. 
Jefferson  outlined  the  second  meeting  in  this  wise: 

Apr.  2.  Met  again  at  P's  on  same  subject.  We  had  all  con- 
sidered and  were  of  one  mind  1.  that  the  house  was  an 
inquest,  &  therefore  might  institute  inquiries.  2.  that  they 
might  call  for  papers  generally.  3.  that  the  Executive  ought 
to  communicate  such  papers  as  the  public  good  would  permit, 
&  ought  to  refuse  those  the  disclosure  of  which  would  injure 
the  public.  Consequently  were  to  exercise  a  discretion. 
4.  that  neither  the  commee  nor  House  had  a  right  to  call  on 
the  head  of  a  deptmt,  who  &  whose  papers  were  under  the 
Presidt.  alone,  but  that  the  commee  shd  instruct  their  chair- 
man to  move  the  house  to  address  the  President 

Hamilt.  agrd  with  us  in  all  these  points  except  as  to  the 
power  of  the  house  to  call  on  heads  of  departmts.  He 
observed  that  as  to  his  departmt  the  act  constituting  it  had 
made  it  subject  to  Congress  in  some  points,  but  he  thot  him- 
self not  so  far  subject  as  to  be  obliged  to  produce  all  papers 
they  might  call  for  ....  in  short  he  endeavd.  to  place  him- 
self subject  to  the  house  when  the  Executive  should  propose 
what  he  did  not  like,  &  subject  to  the  Executive,  when  the 
house  shd  propose  anything  disagreeable * 

The  passages  are  interesting  and  important.  Not 
only  do  they  reveal  the  President  and  his  principal 
assistants  in  council,  but  furthermore  they  indicate 
clearly  the  effort  on  the  part  of  Washington  to  estab- 
lish sound  precedents,  and  on  the  part  of  the  Secre- 
taries and  the  Attorney-General  to  protect  the  execu- 

34  Writings,  I,  189. 

35  Hid.,  I,  189-190.    For  evidence  of  other  meetings,  Ibid.,  I,  179,  205, 
210,  etc. 


THE  CREATION  OF  THE  CABINET  127 

tive  from  any  unfair  invasion  by  the  legislative  power. 
In  brief,  the  President's  assistants  meant  to  keep  the 
executive  department,  as  far  as  it  was  possible,  in  an 
independent  position  in  the  government. 

Tn  1793  the  meetings  of  the  President's  advisers 
were  frequent,  especially  so  after  Washington's 
arrival  in  Philadelphia  on  April  17.  The  most  notable 
of  these  was  the  meeting  of  April  19,  at  which  the 
issuance  of  the  so-called  Neutrality  Proclamation  was 
unanimously  agreed  upon.36  Within  a  month  from  that 
time  Jefferson  referred  to  the  meetings  of  the  advisers 
as  occurring  "almost  every  day."37  There  is  abun- 
dant evidence  to  show  that  the  assistants  of  the  Presi- 
dent held  many  consultations  through  the  summer 
until  early  in  the  month  of  September.  About  the  first 
of  November  meetings  were  again  renewed.38  The 
year  was  a  very  critical  one,  filled  with  problems  of 
policy,  about  the  right  solution  of  which  there  was 
often  much  perplexity  and  grave  doubt. 

The  crisis  of  1793  enforced  the  necessity  of  frequent 
meetings  on  the  part  of  the  President's  best-qualified 
advisers.  And  in  all  likelihood  it  brought  the  Cabinet 
for  the  first  time  forcibly  into  popular  view  as  a  work- 
ing body.  At  any  rate  during  the  year  the  terms 
"council,"  "conclave,"  and  "cabinet"  were  occa- 
sionally applied  to  the  four  assistants  of  Washington. 
The  application  of  these  terms  rested  on  the  obvious 
fact  that  the  President  was  summoning  to  his  aid  a 

,  s6  J.  Sparks,  Writings  of  George  Washington,  X,  337,  Appendix, 
533-536. 

37  Jefferson,  Writings,  VI,  250. 

38/fctd.,  I,  218  ff.     VI,  191  ff. 


128  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

committee  of  officials  somewhat  similar  to  the  English 
Cabinet  Committee.  There  was  nothing  essentially 
new  in  such  a  committee,  closely  related  on  the  one 
hand  to  administrative  departments,  and  on  the  other 
as  advisers  to  the  chief  magistrate.  There  is  no  evi- 
dence but  the  term  "  cabinet "  to  show  that  in  charac- 
terizing the  President's  advisers  men  took  into 
account  anything  but  the  superficial  resemblance  to 
the  English  institution.  What  probably  we  did,  was 
to  adopt  a  well-recognized  English  political  term,  the 
significance  of  which  had  been  pretty  well  settled  in 
the  seventeenth  century. 

There  is  an  occurrence  in  the  summer  of  1793  that 
should  not  escape  attention,  for  while  the  result  served 
to  place  a  restriction  on  the  President  and  his  advis- 
ers, it  likewise,  by  reason  of  that  very  fact,  tended  to 
mark  more  clearly  the  important  sphere  of  effort  to 
which  the  functions  of  the  Cabinet  must  often  be  con- 
fined. We  have  already  noted  the  circumstances 
under  which  the  Senate  was  found  to  be  ineffective  as 
a  possible  council  of  advice.  We  have  also  seen  the 
House  of  Representatives  on  two  separate  occasions 
refuse  to  admit  the  Secretaries  within  their  precincts. 
We  may  now  observe  the  decision  of  the  judges  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  when  Washington 
ventured  to  ask  them  for  an  opinion. 

The  President  and  his  advisers,  perplexed  over  the 
many  legal  problems  arising  under  the  treaties  with 
France,  concluded  on  July  12,  1793,  to  appeal  directly 
for  legal  advice  to  the  federal  judges.  The  judges 
declined  to  respond.  "It  was,  perhaps,  fortunate  for 


THE  CREATION  OF  THE  CABINET  129 

the  judges  and  their  successors,"  remarks  Professor 
Thayer  in  commenting  on  the  occurrence,  "that  the 
questions  then  proposed  came  in  so  formidable  a  shape 
as  they  did.  There  were  twenty-nine  of  them,  and  they 
fill  three  large  octavo  pages.39  ....  Had  they  been 
brief  and  easily  answered  the  Court  might,  not 
improbably,  have  slipped  into  the  adoption  of  a  pre- 
cedent that  would  have  engrafted  the  English  usage 
upon  our  national  system.  As  it  is  ....  while  the 
President  may  require  the  written  opinion  of  his 
Cabinet,  'he  does  not  possess  a  like  authority  in  regard 
to  the  judicial  department.'  "*° 

This  request,  it  may  be  added,  accorded  with  a  colo- 
nial practice  of  asking  the  judges  for  opinions.  The 
usage  went  back  into  fourteenth-century  England.  It 
is,  moreover,  still  maintained  to-day  in  a  few  of  the 
states  of  the  Union.  Charles  Pinckney  had  submitted 
a  proposition  to  the  Philadelphia  Convention  to  allow 
the  supreme  executive  to  "have  authority  to  require 
the  opinions  of  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court  upon 
important  questions  of  law,  and  upon  solemn  occa- 
sions." But  that  body  had  not  favored  it.41 

The   bitter    animosity   which   had   arisen   between 

39  Sparks,  Writings  of  G.  Washington,  X,  542-545  (Appendix). 

»  James  Bradley  Thayer,  Legal  Essays  (1908),  pp.  53-54,  foot  note. 
Cf.  J.  P.  Bishop,  New  Commentaries  on  the  Criminal  Law  (8th  ed. 
Chicago:  1892),  1,30  ($62). 

41  Elliot,  Delates,  V,  445.  August  20.  J.  B.  Thayer,  John  Marshall 
(Riverside  Biographical  Series,  No.  9,  1901),  pp.  70  ff.  There  are  at 
least  seven  states  that  have  provided  for  obtaining  opinions  from  the 
fudges  of  the  highest  court  upon  application  by  the  executive  or  the  legis- 
lature: Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire,  Maine,  Ehode  Island,  Florida, 
Colorado,  and  South  Dakota.  Thayer,  Cases  on  Constitutional  Law 
(1895),  I,  156,  175-176,  177-178,  181,  183,  note,  etc. 


130  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Hamilton  and  Jefferson  by  the  summer  of  1792,  partly 
the  result  of  natural  differences  of  temperament  and 
opinion,  and  partly,  perhaps,  the  result  of  competing 
ambition,  was  aroused  by  the  intimate  relations 
that  the  circumstances  of  their  respective  positions 
enforced.  It  is  certainly  remarkable  that  the  asso- 
ciation of  the  first  three  Secretaries  and  the  Attorney- 
General  could  have  been  maintained  as  long  as  it  was. 
It  is  entirely  unlikely  that  it  could  have  lasted  for  any 
such  period  under  any  other  President  but  Washing- 
ton. Jefferson  was  first  in  the  group  to  surrender 
his  post,  retiring  on  the  last  day  of  December,  1793. 
Within  a  period  of  less  than  two  years  his  three  col- 
leagues had  left  the  administration,  Randolph  having 
been  virtually  dismissed.  Others  succeeded  these  four 
men,  but  they  had  little  to  do  with  the  creation  of  the 
Cabinet. 

In  the  next  chapter  I  propose  to  give  some  attention 
to  the  significance  of  the  term  "cabinet,"  tracing  it 
from  its  appearance  in  1793  to  the  time  when  it  made 
its  way  into  a  federal  statute  in  1907. 


NOTES 


1.     ROBERT  MORRIS  AND  THE  TREASURY  PORTFOLIO  : 

In  the  National  Intelligencer  of  February  24,  1845, 
there  appeared  what  purported  to  be  a  recollection  of 
George  W.  P.  Custis,  grandson  of  Mrs.  Washington, 
regarding  Washington's  offer  of  the  Treasury  head- 
ship in  1789  to  Robert  Morris.  The  passage  was 
reprinted  and  is  accessible  in  the  volume  entitled 
Recollections  and  Private  Memoirs  of  Washington. 
By  G.  W.  P.  Custis  (1860),  p.  349— a  posthumous  pub- 
lication which  contains  notes  by  Benson  J.  Lossing 
and  a  memoir  by  Custis 's  daughter.  It  reads: 

In  1789,  when  the  first  president  was  on  his  way  to  the  seat 
of  the  new  government,  he  stopped  in  Philadelphia  at  the 
house  of  Robert  Morris,  and  while  consulting  with  that  emi- 
nent patriot  and  benefactor  of  America,  as  to  the  members 
of  the  first  cabinet,  Washington  observed,  "The  treasury, 
Morris,  will  of  course  be  your  berth.  After  your  invaluable 
services  as  financier  of  the  Revolution,  no  one  can  pretend  to 
contest  the  office  of  secretary  of  the  treasury  with  you." 
Robert  Morris  respectfully  but  firmly  declined  the  appoint- 
ment, on  the  ground  of  his  private  affairs,  and  then  said, 
"But  my  dear  general,  you  will  be  no  loser  by  my  declining 
the  secretaryship  of  the  treasury,  for  I  can  recommend  to  you 
a  far  cleverer  fellow  than  I  am  for  your  minister  of  finance, 
in  the  person  of  your  former  aid-de-camp,  Colonel  Hamil- 
ton."  The  president  was  amazed,  and  continued,  "I  always 
knew  Colonel  Hamilton  to  be  a  man  of  superior  talents,  but 
never  supposed  that  he  had  any  knowledge  of  finance."  To 
which  Morris  replied,  "He  knows  everything,  sir;  to  a  mind 
like  his  nothing  comes  amiss  .  .  .  ." 


132  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

This  account  is  rather  too  circumstantial  to 
appear  trustworthy.  The  incident  is  said  to  have 
occurred  in  April,  1789,  before  Congress  had  set  to 
work  on  the  task  of  organizing  departments.  Wash- 
ington was  quite  as  well  fitted  as  Morris  to  know 
Hamilton's  real  interests,  for  he  had  been  on  terms 
of  the  greatest  intimacy  with  him.  There  is  perhaps 
a  modicum  of  truth  in  it.  But  it  is  impossible,  in  view 
of  Custis's  general  unreliability,  and  the  absence  of 
contemporary  evidence,  to  give  it  full  credence. 

2.     JEFFERSON'S  APPOINTMENT  AS  SECRETARY  OF  STATE: 

The  material  for  the  study  of  this  subject  is  very 
abundant.  It  seems  worth  while  to  collect  together 
such  sources  as  have  been  consulted  in  formulating  the 
narrative : 

W.  C.  Rives,  Jr.,  History  of  the  Life  and  Times  of  James 
Madison,  III,  63-64.  Letters  and  Other  Writings  of  James 
Madison  (ed.  Rives),  I,  459,  471-472.  Writings  of  James 
Madison  (ed.  G.  Hunt),  V,  435-436.  Writings  of  Thomas 
Jefferson  (ed.  P.  L.  Ford),  Y,  54,  95,  114-115,  134,  139-150. 
Writings  of  George  Washington  (ed.  W.  C.  Ford),  XI,  438- 
439,  467-469.  J.  C.  Hamilton,  Republic,  IV,  31,  113,  115-117, 
474.  Annals  of  Congress,  Senate  Proceedings,  June  16,  18, 
1789.  John  Jay,  Correspondence  and  Public  Papers  (ed. 
H.  P.  Johnston),  III,  365,  366,  380-381.  H.  S.  Randall,  The 
Life  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  I,  554-555,  557,  foot  note.  Memoir, 
Correspondence,  and  Miscellanies  from  the  Papers  of  Thomas 
Jefferson  (ed.  T.  J.  Randolph,  Charlottesville :  1829),  I,  87-89, 
144-146.  George  Tucker,  The  Life  of  Thomas  Jefferson 
(1837),  I,  300.  Autobiography,  Reminiscences  and  Letters  of 
John  Trumbull  from  1756  to  1841  (1841),  p.  154.  Diary  and 
Letters  of  Gouverneur  Morris  (ed.  Anne  C.  Morris),  I,  230. 
Works  of  Alexander  Hamilton  (ed.  Lodge),  VIII,  260. 


THE  CREATION  OF  THE  CABINET  133 

There  are  other  references  to  the  friendship  exist- 
ing between  Madison  and  Jefferson,  but  the  student 
of  the  subject  will  discover  them  easily  in  following 
up  the  correspondence  between  the  two  men  which 
extended  over  a  great  many  years. 

3.     COLONIAL,  PKACTICES: 

There  is  an  interesting  and  apposite  paragraph  on 
the  colonial  practice  of  the  governor  meeting  with  the 
legislative  council  or  upper  house  in  South  Carolina, 
to  be  found  in  Dr.  W.  Roy  Smith's  South  Carolina  as 
a  Royal  Province,  pp.  92-94 : 

During  the  proprietary  and  the  early  years  of  the  royal 
period,  His  Excellency  had  a  seat  in  the  council  in  its  legis- 
lative as  well  as  in  its  executive  and  judicial  capacities 

On  April  11,  1739,  the  upper  house  resolved  that  the  pres- 
ence of  the  governor  or  commander-in-chief  during  the  sit- 
ting of  the  house  was  of  an  unparliamentary  nature  and  that 
they  would  enter  into  no  debates  during  his  presence.  They 
had  good  precedents  for  this.  Richard  West,  special  counsel 
to  the  Board  of  Trade,  had  given  an  opinion  in  1725  that  the 
governor  could  not  legally  vote  when  the  council  was  sitting 
in  a  legislative  capacity.  In  January,  1736,  as  the  result  of 
a  contest  in  New  York,  the  Board  of  Trade  decided  that 
Governor  Cosby  was  neither  to  sit  nor  to  vote  in  the  council 
while  it  was  acting  as  a  branch  of  the  legislature.  When 
Governor  Glen  arrived  in  the  province  in  December,  1743, 
he  became  angry  at  the  attempt  to  exclude  him  from  the 
legislative  council,  and  made  a  speech  endeavoring  to  show 
from  the  practice  of  the  other  provinces  and  the  home  govern- 
ment that  he  had  a  right  to  be  present.  His  exclusion,  he 
•declared,  was  contrary  to  the  British  constitution,  "for  that 
the  King's  Throne  in  the  House  of  Peers  was  not  placed 
there  as  an  ornament  to  the  Room,  but  because  he  had  a  right 


134  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

to  be  there,  and  the  Lord  Coke  says  that  the  Parliament  is 
composed  of  two  houses.  The  King  and  House  of  Lords 
make  one  House,  and  the  House  of  Commons  is  the  other." 
*  He  went  on  to  say  that  he  had  the  same  right  to  be  present 
that  the  King  had  in  the  House  of  Lords.  Whether  or  not  the 
council  were  as  ignorant  of  the  British  constitution  as  Gov- 
ernor Glen  and  were  convinced  by  his  arguments  is  not 
known.  At  any  rate,  they  agreed  that  he  might  be  present, 
.  provided  he  would  never  take  any  part  in  the  debates  or 
receive  any  messages  coming  to  their  house  or  give  answer 
thereto.  Glen  did  not  like  this  purely  ornamental  position 
and  made  the  serious  mistake  of  joining  hands  with  the  lower 
house  in  an  attack  on  the  legislative  powers  of  the  council. 
He  seems  to  have  attended  the  meetings  occasionally  until 
1749,  and  then  to  have  ceased  altogether.  Finally,  he  came 
into  their  chamber  on  April  29,  1756,  as  they  were  reading  a 
message  previously  sent  by  him.  The  reading  was  at  once 

postponed  and  the  house  adjourned  to  the  afternoon 

A  committee  report  of  the  upper  house,  adopted  May  7,  1745, 
during  the  controversy  with  Glen,  calls  attention  to  the  con- 
fusion caused  by  the  governor's  presence  in  their  chamber. 
....  The  governors  had  not  been  content  to  call  meetings 
before  or  after  the  assembly  business  was  done,  but  would 
have  council  meetings  at  intervals  between  and  would  con- 
tinue to  sit  in  the  great  chair  of  the  council  chamber  when 
the  upper  house  met.  The  result  was  that  members  of  the 
assembly  coming  up  with  messages  were  at  a  loss  to  know 
who  was  the  president,  as  at  one  time  the  body  would  be  a 
council,  then  again  an  upper  house. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  TEEM  " CABINET"  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 

THE  practice  of  consulting  his  principal  officers 
together  in  a  council  was  begun  by  President 
Washington  in  the  early  part  of  his  first  term.  It  was 
indirectly  justified  by  Alexander  Hamilton  when,  in 
1792,  he  remarked  that  the  "success  of  every  govern- 
ment ....  must  always  naturally  depend  on  the 
energy  of  the  executive  department.  This  energy 
again  must  materially  depend  on  the  union  and  mutual 
deference  which  subsists  between  the  members  of  that 
department,  and  the  conformity  of  their  conduct  with 
the  views  of  the  chief  executive. ' n  This  was  merely 
a  mode  of  stating  the  theory  that  must  have  been 
behind  the  practice.  In  the  course  of  years  the  prac- 
tice, followed  out  by  the  first  President's  successors, 
became  a  settled  custom.  The  custom  conformed  to 
the  need  of  any  vigorous,  well-organized,  and  care- 
fully directed  central  administration.  In  this  way  an 
administration  could  be  closely  associated  and  its 
work  unified  under  the  lead  of  the  executive  magis- 
trate. 


To  characterize  Washington's  principal  officers  as 
a  body  of  advisers,  the  English  term  "cabinet"  came 
into  use  in  1793.  It  was  well  enough  known  at  the  time 

l  Hamilton,  Works,  VI,  367. 


136  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

as  applicable  to  the  important  source  of  directive 
power  in  the  English  government,  the  Cabinet  Com- 
mittee. It  had  been  used  by  Charles  Pinckney  as  early 
as  1787  to  characterize  what  he,  almost  alone  among 
his  contemporaries,  seems  to  have  foreseen  as  a  prob- 
able development — an  advisory  committee  to  the 
American  chief  magistrate.2  In  1792  the  phrase 
" cabinet  council"  was  applied  locally  to  a  group  of 
New  York  state  officials.3  But,  after  much  scrutiny 
of  newspapers  and  printed  correspondence,  I  have 
never  been  able  to  discover  the  term  "cabinet"  or 
"cabinet  council"  as  applied  to  a  combination  of  the 
nation's  principal  officers  as  a  working  body  before 
the  year  1793. 

At  the  risk  of  being  wearisome,  I  venture  to 
assemble  such  characteristic  evidence  as  can  be  easily 
found  on  the  usage  of  the  term.  In  a  letter  of  Jeffer- 
son to  Madison  of  May  12,  1793,  we  find  this  senti- 
ment: "The  Anglophobia  has  seized  violently  on 
three  members  of  our  council. ' H  On  May  19  Jefferson 
referred  to  the  group  as  i  l  our  conclave. '  *  On  June  13 
Madison  was  apparently  first  to  apply  the  well-known 
English  term,  writing  of  the  "discussions  of  the  cabi- 
net."' Again,  on  July  22,  he  spoke  of  Hamilton's 
"cabinet  efforts."7  On  August  2  Jefferson  confided 
to  his  "Anas"  a  reflection  on  the  differences  of 

2  Supra,  chapter  III,  pC  91,? 

3  Life  and  Correspondenttf*of  Rufus  King,  I,  410. 

4  Writings,  VI,  250. 

5  Hid.,  VI,  261. 

6  Writings  (ed.  Hunt),  VI,  132. 

7  Ibid.,  VI,  136. 


TERM  "CABINET"  IN  UNITED  STATES       137 

opinion  existing  "in  our  Cabinet. "8  On  August  18 
Jefferson  remarked  on  a  paper  "read  in  cabinet  for 
the  1st  time."  Senator  Rufus  King  of  New  York, 
under  date  of  April  12,  1794,  referred  in  his  "  Diary " 
to  the  ' l  cabinet. ' no  Early  in  the  following  year  Madi- 
son, in  writing  to  Jefferson,  said :  "  I  fancy  the  Cabinet 
are  embarrassed. ' m  Quoting  a  letter  written  in  Phila- 
delphia on  October  14,  1795,  the  American  Mercury, 
a  newspaper  published  at  Hartford,  Connecticut, 
printed  the  phrase  "ministerial  cabinet."12  And  on 
the  last  day  of  that  year,  Jefferson,  writing  to  his 
friend,  William  B.  Giles,  a  member  of  the  House  of 
Eepresentatives,  said  of  a  certain  man  that  he  "never 
gave  an  opinion  in  the  cabinet  against  the  rights  of 
the  people."13  Writing  of  Pickering  and  Oliver  Wol- 
cott  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  James  McHenry,  a  cor- 
respondent of  McHenry  in  1796  declared  them  to  be 
"without  doubt  your  inferiors  as  Cabinet  ministers."14 
Soon  after  he  reached  Philadelphia  in  the  spring  of 
1797,  Jefferson  recorded  this  fact  about  President 
Adams :  ' '  Monday,  the  6th  of  March  ....  he  had  met 
his  cabinet"  for  the  first  time.15  Eepresentative  Wil- 
liam Smith  of  South  Carolina,  in  a  letter  to  Eufus 
King,  then  minister  to  England,  after  describing  the 

8  Writings,  I,  253. 

9  Hid.,  VI,  394. 

10  Life  and  Correspondence,  I,  519. 

n  Writings,  VI,  232.    January  26,  1795. 

12  November  23,  1795. 

13  The  reference  is  probably  to  Edmund  Kandolph. 

w  B.  C.  Steiner,  Life  and  Correspondence  of  James  McHenry  (1907). 
p.  166. 

is  Jefferson,  Writings,  I,  273. 


138  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

inauguration  of  Adams  as  President,  said,  under  date 
of  April  3,  1797,  that  the  "  Jacobins  are  flattering  him 
and  trying  to  cajole  him  to  admit  the  V.  P.  into  the 
Council.  "16 

The  instances  might  be  multiplied.  But  such  as  I 
have  here  collected,  chosen  somewhat  at  random  over 
a  period  of  about  four  years,  will  indicate  clearly 
enough  that  the  Cabinet  was  first  characterized  defi- 
nitely in  the  writings  of  a  few  leading  statesmen  who 
V  were  in  close  touch  as  a  rule  with  the  affairs  of 
the  national  government.  The  institution  was  soon 
referred  to  in  the  newspapers  of  the  time.  I  have  not 
discovered  any  reference  to  the  body  in  the  debates 
of  Congress  before  the  year  1798.  On  April  25  of  that 
year,  while  the  bill  providing  for  the  organization  of 
a  navy  department  was  being  discussed  in  the  House 
of  Eepresentatives,  Edward  Livingston,  at  that  time 
a  resident  of  New  York,  referred  unmistakably  to  the 
Cabinet  as  "the  great  council  of  the  nation. "17  Not 
before  Jefferson's  administration  were  there  any 
notable  references  to  the  Cabinet  in  Congress.  The 
term  "cabinet"  may  be  found  used  in  debate  on  Feb- 
ruary 27, 1802,  in  the  House.  It  appeared  again  rather 
less  than  a  year  later  in  a  discussion  on  January  11, 
1803.  It  was  freely  bandied  about  and  criticised  in 
a  sensational  argument  directed  against  the  admin- 
istration by  John  Eandolph  in  March,  1806 — an  occa- 
sion which  revealed  Randolph  in  one  of  his  most 
querulous  moods  full  of  sound  and  fury  against  his 

i*Life  and  Correspondence  of  Eufus  King,  II,  167. 

17  Annals  of  Congress,  5  Cong.,  2  sess.  (1797-1798),  II,  1552. 


TERM  "CABINET"  IN  UNITED  STATES       139 

opponents.  It  was  one  of  these  opponents,  a  member 
of  the  House  from  Pennsylvania,  who  was  moved  to 
make  this  reflection  as  part  of  his  reply.  "I  wish," 
he  declared,  "the  gentleman  had  deigned  to  inform  us 
what  he  meant  by  a  Cabinet.  I  perceive  no  such  thing 
in  the  Constitution  or  laws.  I  believe  the  phrase  is 
peculiar  to  the  Court  of  St.  James,  where  the  Ministers 
of  the  King  are  called  the  Cabinet. "  Truth,  however, 
forced  the  speaker  to  add  at  once  this  statement  of 
fact:  "I  have  heard  the  Heads  of  Departments  and 
the  Attorney-General  assembled  by  the  President  on 
great  occasions,  called  the  Cabinet. " 

There  were  few  variations  in  the  use  of  the  term  as 
time  advanced.  Probably  by  the  close  of  Jefferson's 
administration,  when  the  national  government  had 
been  in  operation  for  a  period  of  twenty  years,  the 
functions  of  the  Cabinet  Committee  of  experts  in  aid 
of  the  chief  magistrate  were  popularly  understood. 
As  an  institution  it  had  taken  a  distinct  place.  Cer- 
tainly Jefferson  could  say  with  good  reason  that  the 
"third  administration  ....  presented  an  example  of 
harmony  in  a  cabinet  of  six  persons,  to  which  perhaps 
history  has  furnished  no  parallel. ' >19 

II 

The  circumstances  which  brought  about  the  creation 
of  the  Cabinet  by  Washington  have  been  traced  and 
set  forth.20  Time  and  the  inevitable  demand  for  a  firm 

18/btd.,  9  Cong.,  1  sess.  (1805-1806),  pp.  561,  564-565,  590,  606,  744. 
w  Writings,  IX,  307. 
20  Supra,  chapter  V. 


140  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

'  executive  policy  gradually  made  the  conception  of  the 
significance  of  the  Cabinet  clear  and  molded  the  insti- 
tution into  permanence.  Here  and  there,  notably  in 
the  writings  of  Hamilton  and  Jefferson,  the  reader 
will  come  upon  evidence  to  show  that  the  conception 
of  the  Cabinet  was  taking  definite  form. 

Attention  has  already  been  called  to  Hamilton's 
remarks  in  1792  on  the  subject  of  the  need  of  energy 
and  unity  in  the  executive.21  In  1800  Hamilton 
expressed  in  a  forcible  way  the  theory  on  which 
every  Cabinet  in  the  American  scheme  of  government 
must  rest.  This  was  his  thought:  "A  President  is  not 
bound, "  he  declared,  "to  conform  to  the  advice  of  his 
ministers.  He  is  even  under  no  positive  injunction  to 
ask  or  require  it.  But  the  Constitution  presumes  that 
he  will  consult  them;  and  the  genius  of  our  govern- 
ment and  the  public  good  recommend  the  practice. 
As  the  President  nominates  his  ministers,  and  may 
displace  them  when  he  pleases,  it  must  be  his  own 
fault  if  he  be  not  surrounded  by  men  who,  for  ability 
and  integrity,  deserve  his  confidence.  And  if  his  min- 
isters are  of  this  character,  the  consulting  of  them  will 
always  be  likely  to  be  useful  to  himself  and  to  the 

state When,  unhappily,  an  ordinary  man  .... 

refrains  from  counselling  with  his  constitutional 
advisers,  he  is  very  apt  to  fall  into  the  hands  of 
miserable  intriguers. ' m 

This  passage,  taken  from  one  of  the  most  bitter 

21  Supra,  p.  135. 

22 "Public  Conduct  of  John  Adams"  (1800),  in  Hamilton,  Works, 
VI,  419. 


TERM  "CABINET"  IN  UNITED  STATES       141 

political  invectives  that  can  be  found,  reflects  the  fact 
that  the  Cabinet  Committee  had  reached  a  position  at 
which  its  general  functions  could  be  easily  defined  by 
a  man  of  insight.  There  is  a  sharp  thrust  at  Presi- 
dent Adams's  unfortunate  experiences  with  his  cabi- 
net advisers,  vigorous  enough  to  make  any  prospective 
successor  of  Adams  think  carefully  about  the  quali- 
ties of  the  men  whom  he  might  wish  to  place  in  the 
Secretaryships  and  the  post  of  Attorney-General. 
The  very  contrast  that  Jefferson's  advisers — a  most 
harmonious  combination — revealed,  is  an  indication 
that  Jefferson  was  probably  alive  to  the  importance 
and  utility  of  the  institution.  At  any  rate,  in  1807, 
Jefferson  expressed  himself  as  follows:  "For  our 
government, "  he  wrote,  "although  in  theory  subject 
to  be  directed  by  the  unadvised  will  of  the  President, 
is,  and  from  its  origin  has  been  a  very  different  thing 
in  practice  ....  all  matters  of  importance  or  diffi- 
culty are  submitted  to  all  the  heads  of  departments 

composing  the  cabinet So  that  in  all  important 

cases  the  Executive  is  in  fact  a  directory. ' )23 

It  can  be  shown  that  the  method  of  cabinet  meetings 
which  Washington  had  first  suggested  as  far  back  as 
1791,  Jefferson  for  the  most  part  followed.  Of  it  he 
said:  "I  practiced  this  method,  because  the  harmony 
was  so  cordial  among  us  all,  that  we  never  failed  by 
a  contribution  of  mutual  views  on  the  subject,  to  form 
an  opinion  acceptable  to  the  whole  .  .  .  .M24  It  was 
not  a  method  sanctioned  by  a  strict  interpretation  of 

23  Jefferson,  Writings,  IX,  69,  70. 
.,  IX,  273-274. 


142  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

the  Constitution,  as  Jefferson  was  well  enough  aware. 
However,  it  accomplished  things  quickly  and,  in  view 
of  the  many  difficult  problems  before  a  President,  it 
was  inevitably  the  most  satisfactory  and  natural 
method. 

Even  from  John  Randolph  we  get  a  glimpse  of  the 
theory  of  the  place  of  the  advisers  in  the  government 
when,  in  November,  1803,  he  declared  it  to  be  "the 
essence  of  Government  that  one  man  cannot  execute 
it  alone;  and  that  he  is  obliged  to  share  it  with 
heads  of  Departments,  or  with  agents  by  some  other 
name.  The  imbecility  of  human  nature  is  such  that 
he  must  participate  power  with  others M25 

On  the  day  that  President  Jefferson  retired  into 
private  life,  March  4,  1809,  a  close  observer  of  execu- 
tive practices  who  had  some  doubts  as  to  the  ultimate 
stability  of  the  existing  form  of  executive,  had  copy- 
righted (and  soon  after  published)  a  pamphlet  entitled 
Considerations  on  the  Executive  Government  of  the 
United  States  of  America.2*  The  author  was  Augustus 
B.  Woodward.  Although  he  dated  his  essay  at  New 
York,  he  held  at  the  time  the  position  of  Chief-Justice 
of  the  Territory  of  Michigan.  The  ideas  in  this 
pamphlet  were  to  some  extent  fantastic  and  imprac- 
tical. But  several  of  them  indicate  a  man  of  unusual 
political  sagacity  and  are  worth  attention.27 

The  keynote  of  Judge  Woodward's  essay  was 
sounded  near  the  beginning  where  he  declared  his  con- 

25  Annals  of  Congress,  8  Cong.,  1  sess.  (1803-1804),  p.  573. 

26  Flatbush,  N.  Y. :  1809,  pp.  87. 

27  For  other  reflections  on  Woodward,  see  chapter  X,  pp.  266  ff.,  and 
Note  1  on  p.  288. 


TERM  "CABINET"  IN  UNITED  STATES       143 

viction  that  the  "  first  shock  which  our  government 
must  sustain,  endangering  its  existence,  or  menacing 
its  stability,  must  be  derived  from  the  executive 
department.  It  is  here  the  storm  will  arise,"  he  con- 
tinued, "and  in  this  quarter  may  we  expect  the  first 
blow  to  our  union."28  With  this  as  a  postulate,  the 
author  proceeded  to  set  forth  sundry  matters,  three 
of  which  have  rather  special  significance  in  connection 
with  the  subject  of  this  chapter.  For  Judge  Wood- 
ward was  the  first  writer,  I  believe,  who  deliberately 
presented  an  intelligent  account  of  the  development 
of  the  Cabinet.  He  had  a  true  appreciation  of  the 
position  of  the  Vice-President  in  the  national  organi- 
zation. Moreover,  he  commented  with  quite  excep- 
tional insight  on  the  rank  of  the  Secretaries;  he  dis- 
approved of  the  Secretaryship  of  State  as  a  stepping 
stone  to  the  office  of  President;  and  he  doubted 
whether  sufficient  care  had  been  shown  hitherto  in  the 
appointment  of  Secretaries  of  War  and  Navy. 

1.  "It  is  understood, "  wrote  Judge  Woodward, 
"to  have  grown  into  a  practice,  under  the  American 
administrations,  to  assemble  the  respective  heads  of 
departments  in  consultation,  on  particular,  important 
and  leading  measures.  When  thus  assembled,  popu- 
lar parlance  has  appropriated  to  them  the  epithet  of 
the  cabinet.  But  is  it,"  he  asked,  "a  constitutional 
council  for  the  President?  He  is  authorized  to  require 
the  opinion  of  any  one  of  them  in  writing,  on  a  matter 
falling  within  his  proper  department.  To  embody 
them,  and  to  render  them  a  council,  is  not  contem- 

28  A.  B.  Woodward,  Considerations,  p.  12. 


144  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

plated  by  the  Constitution.  Is  it  expedient  that  it 
should  be?  They  are  exclusively  the  selection  of  the 
President.  Their  qualifications  for  their  high  appoint- 
ments are  regulated  rather  by  a  particular,  and  per- 
haps professional  skill,  than  by  the  possession  of 
general  talent  or  general  confidence,  The  temptation 
to  display  singular  abilities,  or  to  increase  relative 
consequence,  may  prompt  their  advice.  At  all  times, 
too,  they  are  dependent  on  the  President  for  their 
continuance  in  office."  On  the  whole,  he  concluded, 
this  method  of  giving  advice  makes  too  great  a  demand 
on  the  official.  "It  is  too  severe  a  trial  for  humanity, 
nor  does  counsel  given  in  the  situation  possess  a  title, 
as  strong  as  might  be  desired,  to  the  public  respect. '  * 

2.  "From  the  cabinet,"  he  reminded  his  readers, 
"practice  has  excluded  the  Vice-President.    There  is 
therefore  no  situation  in  our  government  more  trying 
to  a  man  of  real  worth  and  sensibility.    He  may  be 
called  upon  to  mature  measures,  with  the  origin  and 
progress  of  which  he  is  unacquainted;  measures  to 
which  he  may  be  opposed,  and  which  his  intelligence 
might  have  corrected  in  their  incipient  stages."30 

3.  "In    our    executive    departments,"    continued 
Judge   Woodward,    "two   have    been    considered    as 
requiring  talent  and  genius.     Of  these,  practice  has 
given   the   precedence   to   the   department   of   state. 
Twice  has  it  determined  the  succession.     Should  it 
grow  into  a  habit,  and  there  is,  perhaps,  no  reason 

29  Considerations,  pp.  26-27.    I  have  taken  a  few  liberties  with  Wood- 
ward's  old-fashioned  punctuation, 
so  Hid.,  pp.  27-28. 


TERM  "CABINET"  IN  UNITED  STATES       145 

that  it  should  not,  since  the  public  mind  must  neces- 
sarily have  a  channel  for  its  approbation,  and  the 
situation  of  the  Vice-President  calls  for  no  particular 
display  of  talent,31  the  President  becomes  virtually 
invested  with  the  choice  of  his  successor.  Although 
our  policy  is  pacific,  yet  the  impression  that  the  mili- 
tary departments  do  not  require  talent  or  genius,  but 
professional  skill  and  mechanical  assiduity  alone, 
ought  not  to  be  extensively  received.  If  ever  our 
nation,  listening  to  the  dictates  of  folly  or  yielding 
indulgence  to  her  passions,  should  embark  in  the  mad 
contests  of  the  world,  she  may  pay,  by  her  existence, 

the  forfeit  of  her  mistake "32 

We  need  not  concern  ourselves  with  Judge  Wood- 
ward's complicated  plan  which — calling  of  course  for 
an  amendment  to  the  Constitution — provided  for  an 
executive  directory  of  five  persons,  a  President  and 
four  Councillors  elected  for  five  years,  with  machinery 
so  arranged  as  to  allow  after  the  first  year  for  the 
annual  election  of  one  new  director,  as  often  as  there 
was  a  vacancy  by  regular  retirement.33  The  plan  must 
have  been  summarily  relegated  at  the  time  to  the  limbo 
of  quickly-forgotten  political  fantasies.  At  all  events, 
that  is  where  it  belonged.  What  is  worth  emphasis, 
however,  is  this:  the  author's  clear  statement  of  the 
method  by  which  the  Cabinet  had  come  into  being,  and 
his  sagacious  reflections  on  the  Vice-Presidency  and 

31  Of.  Jefferson  to  E.  Gerry,  writing  on  May  13,  1797:  "The  second 
office  of  this  government  is  honorable  and  easy,  the  first  is  but  a  splendid 
misery. ' ' 

32  Considerations,  p.  29. 

33  Ibid.,  Appendix,  pp.  45  ff. 


146  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

the  secretariat.  He  presented  his  views  on  these  sub- 
jects from  the  standpoint  of  one  familiar  with  past 
administrative  practices,  convinced  that,  unless  steps 
were  taken  to  reform  our  political  machinery  and  cus- 
toms, the  Presidency  was  certain  to  be  involved  in 
future  difficulties. 

It  should  perhaps  be  added  that  Judge  Woodward 
was  reflecting  and  writing  on  his  original  theme  as 
late  as  1824.  It  may  well  have  given  him  some  satis- 
faction then  to  note  that  the  "  administrations  of  the 
fourth  and  fifth  Presidents  have  not  been  attended 
with  the  same  felicitous  circumstances,  which  charac- 
terized that  of  the  third — an  entire  exemption  from 
cabinet  explosion  and  dissatisfaction."34  His  convic- 
tion remained  strong  that  the  "difficulties  of  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  human  species  still  lie  where  they  have 
always  lain — in  the  construction  and  in  the  action  of 
the  executive  power."35  From  the  Cabinet  it  was  still 
"the  uniform  course, "  as  he  wrote,  "to  exclude  the 
Vice-President.  Perhaps, "  he  commented,  "his  con- 
stitutional function  of  being  prolocutor  of  the  Senate 
was  deemed  incompatible  with  his  being  a  member  of 
the  Cabinet.  His  attendance  would  frequently  be 
inconvenient,  and  his  possessing  a  voice  in  the  delib- 
erations of  the  Senate  might  render  it  indelicate. 
That  any  dissatisfaction  arose  from  this  course  being 
pursued,  either  at  the  time  of  its  adoption,  or  subse- 
quently, has  never  been  manifested."36  He  continued 

34  The  Presidency  of  the  United  States  (New  York:  1825.    Pp.  88),  p. 
42. 

35  Hid.,  pp.  37-38. 
36/6id.,  p.  9. 


TERM  "CABINET"  IN  UNITED  STATES       147 

to  desire  some  form  of  council  for  the  President  that 
should  be  sanctioned  by  the  Constitution  or  at  least 
by  law,  although  he  could  not  tell  exactly  how  to  pro- 
vide for  such  a  body  under  the  existing  scheme  of 
government.37  But  his  special  contribution  in  the  way 
of  novelty  at  that  time  was — as  we  shall  see  later 
on38 — a  project  for  a  department  of  domestic  affairs, 
concerning  the  importance  and  vital  necessity  of  which 
he  felt  assured. 

Turning  once  more  to  Congress,  we  come  upon 
Josiah  Quincy 's  savage  arraignment  of  the  govern- 
ment in  power  in  January,  1813,  for  the  project  to 
invade  Canada.  In  his  speech,  Quincy  seldom  made 
any  reference  to  the  chief  magistrate,  James  Madison. 
His  invective  was  directed  almost  wholly  against  what 
he  clearly  regarded  as  the  source  of  administrative 
i  policy  and  national  disturbance — the  Cabinet.  His 
i  thought  suggests  to-day,  as  it  may  have  suggested  at 
the  time  it  was  voiced,  the  weakness  of  the  chief  mag- 
istrate. However  that  may  be,  the  entire  speech  is 
peculiarly  significant  of  the  place  the  Cabinet  could 
take  by  that  time  in  the  organization  of  the  national 
government  according  to  the  opinion  of  a  shrewd 
observer  of  government  practices.  At  least  three  pas- 
sages in  the  speech  deserve  attention. 

"I  have  some  claim  to  speak, "  asserted  Quincy 
near  the  opening  of  his  remarks,  "concerning  the 
policy  of  the  men  who  constitute  the  American  cabi- 
*net.  For  eight  years  I  have  studied  their  history, 

37/Znd?.,  pp.  66-67. 
38  Chapter  X,  266  ff. 


148  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

characters,  and  interests I  say,  then,  sir,  with- 
out hesitation,  that,  in  my  judgment  the  embarrass- 
ment of  our  relations  with  Great  Britain  ....  has 
been,  is,  and  will  continue  to  be,  a  main  principle  of 
the  policy  of  this  American  cabinet."39  As  he 
advanced  in  his  argument,  he  declared :  "  It  is  a  curious 
fact,  but  no  less  true  than  curious,  that  for  these 
twelve  years  past  the  whole  affairs  of  this  country  have 
been  managed  and  its  fortunes  reversed  under  the 
influence  of  a  cabinet  little  less  than  despotic,  com- 
posed, to  all  efficient  purposes,  of  two  Virginians 

and  a  foreigner During  this  whole  period  the 

measures  distinctly  recommended  have  been  adopted 
by  the  two  Houses  of  Congress  with  as  much  uni- 
formity and  with  as  little  modification,  too,  as  the 
measures  of  the  British  ministry  have  been  adopted 
during  the  same  period  by  the  British  Parliament. 
The  connection  between  cabinet  councils  and  parlia- 
mentary acts  is  just  as  intimate  in  the  one  country  as 
in  the  other."40 

It  was  near  the  conclusion  of  his  speech  that  Quincy 
dwelt  at  some  length  on  the  "Virginia  influence"  as 
it  had  manifested  itself  in  the  Presidency.  He  con- 
sidered the  Cabinet,  he  declared,  as  doing  everything 
in  its  power  to  keep  the  succession  in  the  Virginia  line, 
in  particular  to  make  Monroe  the  successor  of  Madi- 
son. This  was  his  grandiloquent  and  sensational  out- 
burst: "This  is  the  point  on  which  the  projects  of  the 

39  Josiah  Quincy,  Speeches  delivered  in  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  ....  1805-1813   (edited  by  his  son,  Edmund  Quincy),  pp.  379- 
380. 

40  Hid.,  pp.  397-398. 


TERM  "CABINET"  IN  UNITED  STATES       149 

cabinet  for  the  three  years  past  have  been  brought  to 
bear,  that  James  the  First  should  be  made  to  continue 
four  years  longer.  And  this  is  the  point  on  which  the 
projects  of  the  cabinet  will  be  brought  to  bear  for  the 
three  years  to  come,  that  James  the  Second  shall 
be  made  to  succeed,  according  to  the  fundamental 
rescripts  of  the  Monticellian  dynasty. >m 

It  is  no  part  of  this  inquiry  to  consider  the  exas- 
peration aroused  by  this  venomous  assault  of  the 
Massachusetts  Federalist  upon  his  Bepublican  oppo- 
nents. Clay  met  the  attack  on  the  administration  a 
few  days  later  in  an  eloquent  and  effective  reply. 
Meantime  an  insignificant  member,  Representative 
Ehea,  twitted  Quincy  because,  as  he  said,  "he  talks 
profusely  about  something  he  calls  a  Cabinet,  which, 
according  to  his  talk,  must  know  everything.  A  cabi- 
net! And  pray,  sir,  what  is  a  cabinet?  ....  in 
America,  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
the  word  has  no  meaning  applicable  to  any  depart- 
ment of  the  Government.  Ah!  but  it  is  delicious  to 
follow  anything  carrying  the  fume  of  Old  England."42 
This  was  thoroughly  ineffective — mere  balderdash,  of 
course.  The  element  of  truth  in  Quincy 's  speech  that 
could  hardly  be  overlooked  by  any  intelligent  and  calm 
judge  was  in  substance  this :  that  the  American  govern- 
ment had  never  been  directed  from  the  start  "by  the 
unadvised  will  of  the  President. "  That  was  Jeffer- 
son's conviction.  No  less  explicit  and  truthful  was  the 
statement  of  John  McLean  some  years  later  when,  as 

41  Ibid.,  p.  402. 

42  Annals  of  Congress,  12  Cong.,  2  sess.  (1812-1813),  p.  577. 


150  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Postmaster-General  under  President  John  Quincy 
Adams,  he  declared  to  his  friend,  Edward  Everett, 
that  the  "policy  of  those  who  are  most  intimately 
associated  with  the  President,  contributes  as  much, 
and  sometimes  more,  to  form  the  character  of  the 

Administration,  than  the  acts  of  its  head ' >43 

Men  might  persist — as  they  did — in  objecting  to 
the  word  cabinet  even  long  after  the  days  of  Jefferson 
and  Josiah  Quincy.  It  is  nevertheless  true  that,  by 
that  time,  term  and  institution  had  come  into  their 
American  place.  Henceforth  the  old  English  term 
characterized  not  so  much  a  committee  different  in 
composition  from  the  English  Cabinet  Committee  as 
one  differently  related  to  the  government  of  which  it 
was  a  part. 

Ill 

From  most  of  the  foreign  visitors  to  the  United 
States  during  the  first  few  decades  after  1789,  there 
came  almost  nothing  in  the  way  of  comment  on  our 
political  institutions  and  practices  which  was  either 
penetrating  or  informing.  These  visitors  perceived 
some  of  the  most  obvious  features  of  our  national  gov- 
ernment. They  frequently  sought  out  and  occasionally 
described  cleverly  our  Presidents  or  other  leading 
statesmen.  But  trailing,  one  after  the  other,  over 
pretty  much  the  same  routes  of  slow  and  inconvenient 
travel,  encountering  similar  types,  and  undergoing 
similar  experiences,  in  the  course  of  years  they  often 
dropped  into  rather  stereotyped  language,  borrowed 

« Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Proceedings,  3d  series,  I,  378. 
Letter  of  August  27,  1828. 


TERM  "CABINET"  IN  UNITED  STATES       151 

incidents,  or  otherwise  padded  their  volumes  when 
their  own  industry  and  inspiration  had  given  out.  But 
a  few  of  them  will  repay  consideration,  for  they 
reflected  at  least  surface  appearances  and  popular 
impressions. 

In  the  spring  of  1795,  the  Due  de  La  E/ochef  oucauld- 
Liancourt  met  General  Knox  in  Philadelphia  soon 
after  Knox  had  resigned  the  Secretaryship  of  War. 
Later  he  visited  Knox  on  at  least  two  separate  occa- 
sions at  his  home  in  the  province  of  Maine.  From  this 
acquaintance  it  is  probable  that  the  French  nobleman 
gained  intimate  knowledge  of  President  Washington's 
administration.  At  any  rate,  in  his  Travels,  he  com- 
mented on  the  office  of  President,  remarking  that  it  was 
"not  so  well  provided  with  the  means  of  execution  as 
not  to  require  some  accession  of  strength  from  the 
popularity  of  the  man  who  holds  it,  and  from  the 
confidence  reposed  in  him  by  his  fellow-citizens."44  He 
referred  to  Jefferson's  view  of  politics  as  one  "adopted 
in  the  President's  council."45  But  he  was  careful  to 
point  out  that  the  American  executive  had  "no  consti- 
tutional council. ' >46 

Henceforth,  for  many  years,  the  foreign  observers 
said  little  or  nothing  about  the  Presidency.  Frances 
Wright,  sometimes  known  by  her  married  name  of 
Darusmont,  came  to  our  shores  in  1818  and  spent 
several  years.  Her  book,  Views  of  Society  and 
Manners  in  America,  revealed  an  observer  of  unusual 

44  Travels  through  the  United  States  of  North  America,  in  the  Tears 
1795,  1796,  and  1797  (2  vols.,  London:   1799),  II,  184. 
«.,  II,  515. 
*&,  II,  650-651. 


152  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

discrimination  with  prepossessions  decidedly  in  favor 
of  American  institutions.  Among  other  things  she 
wrote  of  the  President  and  his  Secretaries,  contrasting 
them  intelligently  with  the  English  Cabinet.47  It  was 
a  point  of  view  seldom  easily  grasped  by  English 
travellers.  After  two  years  in  America  during  the 
term  of  President  John  Quincy  Adams,  Captain  Basil 
Hall  remarked  casually  on  the  extreme  importance  of 
the  executive;  but  he  considered  it  as  not  well  estab- 
lished even  by  that  time.48  The  violence  of  the  election 
contests  which  preceded  Jackson's  terms  was  certain 
to  arouse  comment  and  some  reflections  on  the  presi- 
dential office.  Many  a  foreign  critic  remarked  on  the 
contests,  but  the  attempts  to  account  for  them  led 
foreign  writers  into  many  vagaries  and  indicated  much 
misconception  as  to  the  office  of  President. 

Achille  Murat,  nephew  of  the  first  Napoleon,  a  resi- 
dent in  America  since  1821  and  to  some  extent 
identified  with  Florida  politics,  recognized  that  the 
Attorney-General  had  a  place  as  "part  of  the  presi- 
dent's cabinet  council."  But  he  was  unaware  in  1832 
that  Jackson  had  for  three  years  been  reckoning  the 
Postmaster-General  as  one  of  his  regular  council 
associates.49 

Two  Scotch  visitors,  James  Stuart  and  Thomas  Ham- 
ilton— the  latter  a  younger  brother  of  Sir  William 

47  London:  1822,  2d  ed.,  pp.  333  ff.  Madame  Darusmont  died  at 
Cincinnati,  Ohio,  in  1852. 

*8  Travels  in  North  America,  in  the  Years  1827  and  1828  (2  vols., 
Philadelphia:  1829),  II,  36-37. 

®A  Moral  and  Political  Sketch  of  the  United  States  of  North 
America  (London:  1833),  pp.  189,  307. 


TERM  "CABINET"  IN  UNITED  STATES       153 

Hamilton — referred  with  some  interest  to  the  Cabinet 
as  they  observed  it  in  Jackson 's  first  term.  i  l  Instances 
occurred, "  remarked  Stuart,  "even  during  the  short 
period  of  my  stay  at  Washington,  which  led  me  to 
think  that,  instead  of  the  house  sending  to  the  ministers 
for  information,  it  would  be  attended  with  advantage 
that  the  secretaries  of  state,  even  if  they  had  no  vote, 
should  be  allowed  to  sit  and  speak  in  the  house/' 
Hamilton,  although  meeting  President  Jackson  and  his 
Secretary  of  State  in  an  intimate  way,  was  unable  to 
straighten  out  the  simple  facts  about  the  Cabinet.  Like 
Stuart,  he  looked  upon  it  as  curious  that  the  ministers 
should  be  excluded  ' '  from  even  a  deliberative  voice  in 
either  branch  of  the  legislature. "  Ever  ready  with 
explanations,  he  thus  continued : 

It  proceeds,  no  doubt,   from  that  extreme  jealousy  of  the 

executive and  is  necessarily  productive  of  much  delay 

and  inconvenience It  is  somewhat  strange  that  the 

American  constitution,  which  evidently  presumes  that  every 
man  in  office  is  a  scoundrel,  should  have  removed,  in  this 
instance,  one  of  the  strongest  and  most  efficient  securities  for 

public    virtue A    British    minister    cannot    skulk    in 

Downing  Street,  when  the  Commons  of  England  are  dis- 
cussing the  wisdom  of  his  measures,  or  the  purity  of  his 

motives The    oracles    of    an    American    minister    are 

issued  only  from  the  shrine  of  his  bureau The  Ameri- 
cans ....  in  excluding  their  executive  officers  from  all 
place  in  their  representative  bodies,  have  gratuitously  dis- 
carded a  powerful  and  efficient  security  for  the  honest  and 
upright  administration  of  their  affairs.51 

so  Three  Tears  in  North  America  (2  vols.,  Edinburgh:  1833),  II,  12. 
51  Men  and  Manners  in  America.     By  the  author  of  Cyril  Thornton. 
(2  vols.,  2d  Amer.  ed.,  Philadelphia:  1833),  II,  34-36. 


154  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

There  were  far  more  accurate  statements  of  the 
facts  that  lay  behind  the  well-known  schism  in  Jack- 
son 's  first  Cabinet,  but  no  careful  student  or  reader 
should  overlook  the  impressions  of  it  which  Mrs. 
Trollope  recorded  in  her  inimitable  way.52 

Before  concluding  this  aspect  of  the  subject,  let  me 
cite  from  a  work  that  appeared  in  the  summer  of  1828 
under  the  title,  Notions  of  the  Americans.  Published 
anonymously,  but  written  by  James  Fenimore  Cooper 
— then  at  the  height  of  his  renown — it  was  an  attempt 
to  make  clear  the  falsity  of  European  impressions 
about  America.  The  author  adopted  as  a  means 
toward  his  object  the  artificial  method  of  putting  his 
observations  and  statements  of  fact  into  the  mouth  of 
a  European  travelling  bachelor,  member  of  a  club  of 
cosmopolites,  who  was  persuaded  to  come  to  America 
on  a  visit  and  thence  to  send  letters  filled  with  his 
impressions  to  his  friends.  There  was  in  the  letters 
a  great  deal  of  current  gossip,  but  some  excellent 
statements  of  fact,  among  them  this : 

You  probably  know  already  that  the  president  of  the  United 
States  is  assisted  by  a  cabinet.  It  is  composed  of  four  secre- 
taries (state,  treasury,  war,  and  navy),  and  of  the  attorney- 
general.  As  the  president  alone  is  answerable  for  his  proper 
acts,  these  ministers  have  no  further  responsibility  than  as 
their  own  individual  agency  is  concerned.  They  have  no 

seats  in  congress It  is  an  unsettled  point  whether 

congress  has  a  right  to  admit  the  ministers  to  possess  con- 
sultative voice  in  the  two  houses.  I  think  the  better  opinion 
is,  that  they  have;  but  the  practice  has  never  yet  been 

52 Domestic  Manners  of  the  Americans  (2  vols.  in  one.  London: 
1832),  II,  181-182. 


TERM  "CABINET"  IN  UNITED  STATES       155 

adopted.  Indeed,  there  is  a  sort  of  fastidious  delicacy 
observed  on  this  subject,  which,  in  effect,  prevents  the  secre- 
taries from  attending  the  debates  even  as  auditors.  I  have 
never  seen  any  member  of  the  cabinet  in  the  chamber  of  either 

body The  exclusion  of  the  ministers  from  the  debates 

is  thought,  by  many  people,  to  be  a  defect,  since,  instead  of 
the  verbal  explanations  which  they  might  give,  if  present, 
it  is  now  necessary  to  make  formal  demands  on  the  different 
departments  for  information.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  con- 
tended that  the  existing  practice  compels  members  to  make 
themselves  familiar  with  details,  and  that  they  are  none  the 
worse  legislators  for  their  labour.  In  no  case  could  the 
ministers  be  allowed  to  vote,  or  even  to  propose  a  law, 
directly 53 

IV 

It  is  not  necessary  to  follow  the  term  farther  in  much 
detail.  As  early  as  1803  it  was  used  by  Chief -Justice 
Marshall  in  the  Supreme  Court  decision  of  Marbury 
vs.  Madison*  Jackson  was  the  first  President,  as  one 
might  expect,  to  use  the  term  in  an  annual  message.  It 
appeared  in  his  first  message  of  December  8,  1829,  and 
may  be  discovered  in  a  few  other  state  papers  issued 
or  signed  by  him.55  Tyler  again  employed  the  term  to 
characterize  his  advisers  in  his  fourth  and  last  annual 
message  of  December  3,  1844.  Since  Tyler's  adminis- 
tration the  word  has  appeared  occasionally  in  the 

53 Notions  of  the  Americans:  Picked  up  by  a  Travelling  Bachelor. 
(2  vols.,  London:  1828),  II,  47-51,  passim.  For  an  estimate  of  this  work 
see  Professor  T.  R.  Lounsbury's  James  Fenimore  Cooper  (American 
Men  of  Letters  Series),  pp.  lOOff. 

wi  Cranch,  Reports,  p.  170. 

^'Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents  (ed.  Richardson),  II,  448. 
Ill,  5,  19,  36,  198,  199,  210,  211,  212,  433,  597. 


156  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

formal  and  public  papers  of  some  of  the  succeeding 
Presidents.  But  its  use  has  been  rare.56 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  careful  scrutiny  of  the 
congressional  debates  would  reveal  occasional  com- 
ments on  the  Cabinet  and  on  the  usage  now  and  again 
of  the  term.  As  a  more  recent  instance  than  any  which 
has  been  cited  thus  far,  I  may  refer  to  a  passage  in 
connection  with  the  debates  in  1870,  just  previous  to 
the  act  for  the  re-organization  of  the  judicial  estab- 
lishment. Hon.  William  Lawrence,  Eepresentative 
from  Ohio,  had  this  to  say: 

"We  also  understand  that  by  usage  there  are  certain  officers 
of  the  Government,  heads  of  Departments,  who  are  members 
of  what  is  called  by  common  usage  ' '  the  Cabinet. ' '  I  am  well 
aware  that  there  is  no  law  which  organizes  the  Cabinet;  but 
almost  from  the  foundation  of  the  Government  the  President 
has  been  in  the  habit  of  calling  a  council  of  the  heads  of 
Departments  and  taking  their  advice  upon  all  important 
public  matters;  and  these  officers  acting  in  that  capacity  are 
in  common  parlance  called  "the  Cabinet."  Now,  the  Attor- 
ney General  is  one  of  the  officers  who,  in  accordance  with 
this  usage,  has  been  consulted  by  the  President.57 

There  was  some  further  discussion  of  the  term  at  that 
time.  But  it  amounted  to  nothing  but  the  distinct 
recognition  of  the  fact  of  the  well-known  existence  of 
the  institution.  The  law  had  as  yet  taken  no  notice 
of  it. 

That  the  term  cabinet  has  at  last  gained  a  place  in 
the  language  of  the  federal  statute  law  is  remarkable 
enough  to  call  for  a  brief  explanation.  In  an  act 

56  Messages,  IV,  350,  659.    V,  163,  etc. 

57  Globe,  41  Cong.,  2  sess.,  Pt.  IV,  pp.  3065  ff.     (April  28,  1870.) 


TERM  "CABINET"  IN  UNITED  STATES       157 

approved  and  signed  by  President  Roosevelt  on  Feb- 
ruary 26,  1907,  provision  was  made  for  increasing  the 
salaries  of  the  Secretaries,  Attorney-General,  and 
Postmaster-General  from  $8,000 — the  sum  at  which 
they  were  fixed  by  law  in  187458— to  $12,000.  The  part 
of  the  act  with  which  we  are  concerned  read  as  follows : 

Sec.  4.  That  on  and  after  March  fourth,  nineteen  hundred 
and  seven,  the  compensation  of  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of 
Representatives,  the  Vice-President  of  the  United  States  and 
the  heads  of  Executive  Departments  who  are  members  of  the 
President's  Cabinet  shall  be  at  the  rate  of  twelve  thousand 
dollars  per  annum  each 59 

Behind  this  mature  formulation  was  the  customary 
story  of  a  struggle  in  Congress  over  the  bill  for  appro- 
priations for  the  year,  1907-1908.  Introduced  into  the 
House  on  the  previous  December  7,  the  bill  was  debated 
first,  after  its  second  reading,  on  the  10th.  Four  days 
later — Friday,  the  14th — Representative  Lucius  N. 
Littauer  of  New  York  proposed  that  the  compensation 
of  the  heads  of  the  executive  departments  "who  are 
members  of  the  President's  Cabinet "  should  be  at  the 
rate  of  $12,000  per  annum.  This  proposition  brought 
to  his  feet  Representative  James  R.  Mann  of  Illinois. 
Mr.  Mann  recognized  at  once  the  appearance  in  this 
suggestion  of  a  term  hitherto  unknown  to  the  statute 
law,  and  criticised  the  language  accordingly.  * '  I  sup- 
pose the  gentleman  is  aware, "  he  began,  "that  there 

58  Act  of  1874,  dated  January  20.    See  Appendix  A  for  all  changes  in 
the  salaries  of  the  President,  Vice-President,  and  principal  officers,  1789- 
1909,  p.  396. 

59  34  Statutes  at  Large,  ch.  1635,  p.  993.    For  salary  of  the  Secretary 
of  Agriculture,  Ibid.,  ch.  2907,  p.  1256. 


158  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

is  no  place  in  the  statutes  where  there  is  any  recogni- 
tion of  the  President's  Cabinet.  The  gentleman  in  his 
amendment/'  continued  the  speaker,  "provides  for  an 
increase  of  salary  for  the  heads  of  Departments  who 
constitute  the  President's  Cabinet.  Would  it  not  be 
wiser,"  he  asked,  "to  designate  the  nine  secretaries— 
the  heads  of  the  various  Departments — who,  in  fact, 
constitute  the  Cabinet?"  There  was  a  brief  succeed- 
ing colloquy  over  the  matter  between  Messrs.  Littauer 
and  Mann.  It  had,  however,  only  an  ephemeral  inter- 
r  est.  The  significant  result  was  this — that  the  term 
cabinet  went  consciously  into  the  statute  law  of  the 
United  States.  The  course  of  the  bill  was  not  alto- 
gether smooth.  But  neither  Senate  nor  House  made 
any  essential  alteration  in  the  language  first  proposed. 
It  was  language,  as  Eepresentative  Littauer  remarked, 
which  could  not  be  misunderstood,  for  it  designated 
a  perfectly  well-known  and  real  institution.60 

eo  Congressional  Record  (1906-1907),  Pt.  I,  p.  381.  The  course  of  the 
bill  may  easily  be  followed  from  December  7  to  February  26,  1907.  It 
passed  the'  Senate  on  January  14,  but  there  were  adjustments  to  be  set- 
tled with  the  House  before  it  reached  President  Eoosevelt. 

Mr.  Sidney  Low  called  attention  to  the  appearance  of  the  term  Prime 
Minister  in  the  opening  clause  of  the  Treaty  of  Berlin,  where  Beacons- 
field  was  characterized  as  ' '  First  Lord  of  Her  Majesty 's  Treasury,  Prime 
Minister  of  England. ' '  This,  he  thinks,  is  the  first  formal  appearance  of 
the  term  in  an  English  public  document.  Governance  of  England  (1904), 
p.  154.  " Until  1906,"  says  Mr.  Lowell,  "the  Prime  Minister,  like  the 
cabinet  itself,  was  unknown  to  the  law. ' '  In  that  year  the  position  seems 
to  have  been  recognized  by  being  accorded  a  place  in  the  order  of  prece- 
dence. Government  of  England  (1908),  I,  68.  See  Hansard,  Delates, 
4  Ser.,  CLVI,  742  (May  3,  1906). 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  ATTORNEY-GENERALSHIP 

OF  all  the  great  offices  established  in  1789,  that  of 
the  Attorney-General  was  in  some  respects  the 
least  satisfactory  in  its  organization.  Attention  has 
already  been  called  to  the  brevity  of  that  portion  of 
the  Judiciary  Act  devoted  to  the  Attorney-General's 
place.  This  brevity  suggests  the  immaturity  of  the 
administrative-judicial  system  of  the  central  govern- 
ment. The  office  was  an  innovation  in  connection  with 
that  government.  But  the  incumbent,  recognized  as 
legal  adviser  to  the  President  and  the  heads  of  depart- 
ments, was  inevitably  brought  within  the  range  of 
executive  control,  and  became,  like  the  Secretaries,  a 
ministerial  officer.1 

When,  in  1790,  Edmund  Randolph,  first  of  the 
Attorneys-General,  wrote  of  himself  as  "a  sort  of 
mongrel  between  the  State  and  U.  S. ;  called  an 
officer  of  some  rank  under  the  latter,  and  yet  thrust 
out  to  get  a  livelihood  in  the  former,"2  he  cast  no 
doubtful  reflection  on  the  status  and  relation  of  his 
position.  He  knew  that  he  was  head  of  no  department. 
Moreover,  his  salary  of  fifteen  hundred  dollars  was  so 
small  that  probably  he  could  not  have  been  expected 
to  support  himself  by  it.  He  was  obliged  to  trust  to 
legal  practice  to  eke  out  a  living.  There  is  no  evidence 

1 1  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  92. 

2  M.  D.  Conway,  Omitted  Chapters,  p.  135. 


160  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

to  indicate  that  lie  was  even  expected  to  remain  at  the 
seat  of  government,  although  he  was  obliged  to  keep 
*in  touch  with  the  President,  at  least  by  ^  occasional 
correspondence.*  x  And^,  should  the  federal  business 
warrant  it,  the  President  might  summon  him  to  a  con- 
ference with  the  Secretaries.  He  was  certainly  reck- 
oned an  adviser  in  legal  matters  by  Washington  from 
the  start. 

The  place  and  functions  of  the  Attorney-General 
remained  for  many  years  after  1789  subjects  of  reflec- 
tion on  the  part  of  thoughtful  men.  Several  Presi- 
dents, beginning  with  James  Madison,  urged  reform  in 
the  office,  although  apparently  having  no  clear  notions 
at  first  as  to  what  measures  of  reform  were  needed. 
The  Attorneys-General  themselves  were  helpful  in  the 
solution  of  the  problem,  none  more  so  than  William 
Wirt  and  Caleb  Gushing.  The  problem  became  clearer 
under  the  stress  of  numerous  circumstances  in  the 
growth  and  requirements  of  federal  administration. 
By  the  close  of  the  Civil  War  it  was  forced  into  the 
foreground;  and  Congress,  acting  in  1870  after  long 
deliberation,  established  the  office  on  a  new  footing, 
giving  the  Attorney-General  a  place  as  head  of  the 
department  of  justice.  The  act  of  1870,  it  should  be 
added,  made  no  change  in  law  as  to  the  duty  of  the 
Attorney-General  in  giving  official  opinions  and  advice. 


Before  the  outbreak  of  the  war  in  1812,  Madison 
called  attention  to  the  large  accumulation  of  business 
in  the  various  departments  of  the  government,  in  par- 


THE  ATTORNEY -GENERALSHIP      161 

ticular  in  the  war  department,  which  was  dispropor- 
tionately burdened.  This  accumulation  was  due 
largely  to  the  peculiar  state  of  our  foreign  relations 
that  for  years  had  involved  all  the  Secretaries  in 
exhausting  labors.  These  relations  had  affected  the 
entire  administrative  machinery  of  the  federal  gov- 
ernment.3 As  a  farewell  word  in  his  last  annual  mes- 
sage of  December,  1816,  Madison  urged  upon  Con- 
gress the  propriety  of  establishing  an  additional 
executive  department  "to  be  charged  with  duties  now 
overburdening  other  departments  and  with  such  as 
have  not  been  annexed  to  any  department.  "*  To 
another  kindred  matter  he  drew  attention  in  these 
words:  "The  course  of  experience/'  he  declared, 
"recommends  ....  that  the  provision  for  the  station 
of  Attorney-General,  whose  residence  at  the  seat  of 
Government,  official  connections  with  it,  and  the  man- 
agement of  the  public  business  before  the  judiciary 
preclude  an  extensive  participation  in  professional 
emoluments,  be  made  more  adequate  to  his  services 
and  his  relinquishments,  and  that,  with  a  view  to  his 
reasonable  accommodation  and  to  a  proper  depository 
of  his  official  opinions  and  proceedings,  there  be 
included  in  the  provision  the  usual  appurtenances  to 
a  public  office.  "5 

Such  reflections  coming  from  one  of  the  leaders  in 
the  Philadelphia  Convention,  who  had  since  had  much 
experience  in  administrative  work,  were  not  easily 

3  April  20.     Special  message  in  Messages  and  Papers,  I,  499. 
*  December  3.     Ibid.,  I,  577. 
,  I,  577-578. 


162  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

overlooked  by  several  of  Madison's  successors  in  the 
Presidency.  John  Quincy  Adams,  Jackson,  and  Polk 
all  harked  back  to  his  remarks  about  the  position  of 
the  Attorney-General.  But  the  reflections,  it  may  be 
observed,  hinted  at  incidents  in  the  past  which  have 
hitherto  escaped  any  careful  attention  from  historians. 

In  1814  an  attempt  had  been  made  to  enact  a  resi- 
dence requirement.  In  January  of  that  year  a  reso- 
lution was  introduced  into  the  House  for  the  express 
purpose  of  inquiring  into  the  expediency  of  "making 
it  the  duty  of  the  Attorney-General  of  the  United 
States  to  keep  his  office  at  the  seat  of  Government 
during  the  session  of  Congress/'  Evidently  the 
House  regarded  the  Attorney-General  as  the  proper 
officer  to  aid  it  at  times  in  respect  to  doubtful  points 
of  law.  The  resolution  prepared  the  way  for  a  bill 
in  conformity  with  it  which,  after  sundry  alterations, 
was  passed  by  the  House  in  April,  but  got  no  farther 
than  a  second  reading  in  the  Senate.6 

The  bill  met  Madison's  wishes,  so  far  at  least  as  the 
residence  requirement  was  concerned.  "I  readily 
acknowledge,"  wrote  the  President,  "that,  in  a  gen- 
eral view,  the  object  of  the  bill  is  not  ineligible  to  the 
Executive."7  But  Madison  was  disturbed  when  he 
learned  that  his  able  Attorney-General,  William 
Pinkney  of  Maryland,  was  ready  to  resign  because  of 

6  Annals  of  Congress,  13  Cong.,  2  sess.  (1813-1814),  pp.  766,  852-853, 
1114-1115,  2023-2024.    Of.  Henry  Adams,  History  of  the  United  States, 
VII,  398. 

7  Writings  (ed.  Eives),  II,  581.     The  same  odd  use  of  "ineligible" 
may  be  seen  in  No.  50  of  The  Federalist,  one  more  slight  piece  of  evi- 
dence favoring  Madison's  authorship  of  that  disputed  number. 


THE  ATTORNEY-GENERALSHIP  163 

the  residence  requirement  likely  to  be  enacted  into 
law.  Pinkney  in  fact  did  resign8  some  months  before 
the  fate  of  the  resolution  was  known,  for  he  was  prob- 
ably chiefly  dependent  on  private  practice  in  Balti- 
more, the  city  in  which  he  resided.  In  accepting  his 
resignation  Madison  wrote:  " There  may  be  instances 
where  talents  and  services  of  peculiar  value  outweigh 
the  consideration  of  constant  residence;  and  I  have 
felt  all  the  force  of  this  truth  since  I  have  had  the 
pleasure  of  numbering  you  among  the  partners  of  my 
public  trust.  "9  Madison  exacted  the  stipulation  from 
Richard  Eush,  Pinkney 's  successor  in  the  office,  that 
during  sessions  of  Congress  he  must  reside  at  the  seat 
of  government.10 

The  salary  of  the  Attorney-General  was  at  this  time 
three  thousand  dollars.  It  had  started  in  1789  at  half 
that  amount,  but  was  gradually  increased  and  at 
length  doubled  in  1800.  But  Congress  was  thereafter 
slow  in  increasing  it.  And  it  was  not  until  1853  that 
the  salary  of  the  office  was  placed  on  a  par  with  that 
of  the  Secretaries  and  of  the  Postmaster-General.  By 
the  appropriation  act  of  that  year11 — so  far,  at  any 
rate,  as  salaries  could  mark  unity  and  equality — the 
five  Secretaries,  along  with  the  Postmaster-General 
and  the  Attorney-General,  stood  upon  an  equal  foot- 
ing. 

It  will  be  observed  that  Madison  implied  that  the 

8  January  25,  1814. 

9  Writings,  II,  581. 

10  Annals  of  Congress,  14  Cong.,  2  sess.  (1816-1817),  p.  699. 

11  March  3,  1853.     For  salaries,  see  Appendix  A  to  this  volume,  p. 
396. 


164  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Attorney-General  might  have  a  certain  amount  of 
private  practice  apart  from  his  duties  as  a  federal 
official.  The  truth  is  that  such  practice  was  under- 
taken often  by  the  early  Attorneys-General.  And  I 
can  find  no  very  pronounced  opinion  regarding  it  until 
the  days  of  Caleb  Gushing  when  Gushing  recorded 
himself  against  it  in  a  very  vigorous  way,  as  we  shall 
see  later  in  this  chapter. 

Madison  had  said  quite  enough  on  the  subject  of 
the  Attorney-Generalship  to  attract  the  attention  of 
Congress.  And  in  the  session  opening  in  December  of 
1816,  there  was  some  effort  made  to  work  out  various 
alterations.  But  nothing  was  immediately  accom- 
plished. Economy  was  the  watchword  of  the  epoch. 
Nevertheless  the  reader  of  the  congressional  debates 
may  gain  some  important  truths  about  the  position 
and  office  of  the  Attorney-General  from  a  stray  letter 
of  Monroe,  at  the  moment  Secretary  of  State,  but 
about  to  take  office  as  President — a  letter  which 
Monroe  addressed  to  Lowndes,  chairman  of  the  House 
Committee  of  Ways  and  Means.  This  letter  was  pro- 
duced in  the  House  on  January  21, 1817.12 

"The  Attorney  General, "  said  Monroe,  "has  been 
always,  since  the  adoption  of  our  Government,  a  mem- 
ber of  the  executive  council,  or  cabinet.  For  that 
reason  as  well  as  for  the  better  discharge  of  his  other 
official  duties,  it  is  proper  that  he  should  reside  at  the 

seat  of  Government His  duties  in  attending 

the  cabinet  deliberations  are  equal  to  those  of  any 
other  member Being  at  the  Seat  of  Govern- 

12  Annals  of  Congress,  14  Cong.,  2  sess.  (1816-1817),  pp.  699-700. 


THE  ATTORNEY-GENERALSHIP  165 

ment  throughout  the  year,"  Monroe  continued,  "his 
labors  are  increased  by  giving  opinions  to  the  different 

Departments  and  public  officers Being  on  the 

spot,  it  may  be  supposed  that  he  will  often  be  resorted 
to  verbally  in  the  progress  of  current  business.  Such 
is  the  fact."  Then  turning  to  another  aspect  of  the 
theme,  Monroe  declared:  "The  present  Attorney- 
General  [Richard  Rush]  has  not  embarked  in  the 
practice  of  the  local  courts  of  the  city  of  Washington. 
The  practice  is,  in  itself,  of  little  moment;  and  to 
engage  in  it  upon  a  scale  to  make  it,  in  any  degree, 
worth  his  attention,  would  be  incompatible  with  the 
calls  to  which  he  is  liable  from  the  Executive,  and  the 
investigations  due  to  other  official  engagements." 
Monroe  knew  that  the  office  had  been  shabbily  treated 
at  the  hands  of  Congress,  for  after  calling  attention 
to  the  facts  that  it  had  no  apartment  for  business,  no 
clerk,  and  not  even  a  messenger,  he  added  that  it  had 
had  neither  stationery  nor  fuel.  "These  have  been 
supplied,"  he  concluded,  "by  the  officer  himself,  at  his 
own  expense." 

Monroe 's  letter  is  an  extraordinarily  interesting  and 
authoritative  commentary  on  the  primitive  conditions 
that  surrounded  an  officer  of  some  rank  in  the  national 
government  of  1817.  It  came  from  the  most  expe- 
rienced and  tried  administrative  official  serving  Madi- 
son, for  Monroe  had  held  both  the  office  of  Secretary 
of  State  and  that  of  Secretary  of  War,  sometimes 
sustaining  them  together  for  brief  periods  during  the 
six  years  preceding.  It  revealed  a  man  thoroughly 
prepared  to  appreciate  the  need  of  a  capable  occupant 


166  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

of  the  office.  Although  it  took  Monroe  some  time  to 
select  his  Attorney-General,  he  had  good  reason,  as 
we  shall  presently  see,  to  feel  by  the  close  of  his 
administration  as  President  great  satisfaction  over 
his  choice. 

II 

William  Wirt  of  Virginia  accepted  the  post  of 
Attorney-General  offered  him  by  President  Monroe 
late  in  October,  1817,  with  a  clear  understanding  that 
there  was  nothing  in  the  duties  of  his  office  to  prevent 
him  from  carrying  on  general  practice  in  Washington, 
where  he  took  up  his  residence,  or  from  attending 
occasional  calls  to  Baltimore,  Philadelphia  or  else- 
where, if  time  allowed.13  He  knew,  however,  that  his 
first  obligation  was  to  Monroe  and  to  the  regular 
duties  of  his  new  position. 

On  the  very  day  of  his  commission,  November  13, 
he  sketched  on  the  fly-leaf  of  a  record-book  a  simple 
plan  which  revealed  his  purpose  of  keeping  careful 
records  and  of  obtaining  from  the  various  heads  of 
departments  who  might  consult  him  copies  of  all  docu- 
ments concerning  which  he  might  be  asked  for  opin- 
ions.14 Some  months  later,  under  date  of  March  27, 
1818,  Wirt  addressed  a  letter  to  Judge  Hugh  Nelson, 
chairman  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the  House  of 
Representatives.  In  this  letter  he  set  forth  what  he 

13  J.   P.  Kennedy,  Memoirs  of  the  Life  of  William  Wirt   (1st  ed., 
1849),  II,  32. 

14  Original  record  quoted  in  J.  S.  Easby-Smith,  The  Department  of 
Justice:  Its  History  and  Functions  (1904),  p.  10. 


THE  ATTORNEY-GENERALSHIP  167 

conceived  to  be  certain  defects  of  the  law  of  1789,  that 
portion  of  the  Judiciary  Act  which  established  the 
office,  and  drew  attention  to  such  improvements  as  he 
hoped  that  Congress  might  be  induced  to  make.  It 
was  an  informing  if  not  a  constructive  statement.  It 
probably  accomplished  little,  if  any,  change,  for  it 
never  reached  the  House  directly,  so  far  as  I  can  dis- 
cover, but  was  filed  away  with  other  committee  mate- 
rial, and  gained  publicity  only  in  1849,  fifteen  years 
after  Wirt's  death,  when  it  was  printed  at  length  in 
the  Memoirs  of  the  Life  of  William  Wirt,  written  by 
Wirt  's  friend,  John  Pendleton  Kennedy.  At  that  time 
it  attracted  attention,  especially  among  the  mem- 
bers of  the  legal  profession.  Its  substance  merits 
consideration.15 

Wirt  began  with  an  examination  of  the  Judiciary 
Act  of  September  24,  1789.  There  the  duties  of  the 
Attorney-General  were  briefly  set  forth.  They  had  not 
been  more  clearly  elaborated  in  any  later  enactment. 
Wirt  next  sought  for  the  records  of  opinions  as  given 
by  his  predecessors  in  the  office — for  letter-books, 
official  correspondence  and  documentary  evidence,  but 
could  not  find  a  trace  of  these.  Accordingly  he  con- 
cluded that  there  could  have  been  neither  consistency 
in  the  opinions  nor  uniformity  in  the  practices  of  the 
Attorneys-General.  He  indicated  that  in  various  ways 
he  had  discovered  that  his  forerunners  had  been  called 
on  for  opinions  from  many  sources — committees  of 

15  Kennedy,  Memoirs,  II,  61-65.  The  Monthly  Law  Reporter  for 
December,  1850,  reprints  from  Kennedy  the  Wirt  letter  of  1818,  com- 
ments on  Kennedy's  book,  but  makes  several  misstatements  about  the 
Attorney-General. 


168  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Congress,  district  attorneys,  collectors  of  customs  and 
of  public  taxes,  marshals,  and  even  courts-martial. 
Clearly  these  practices  went  far  beyond  the  provisions 
of  law.  Eesting  on  courtesy  merely,  they  impressed 
Wirt  as  dangerous.  It  was  his  opinion  that  '  '  from  the 
connection  of  the  Attorney-General  with  the  executive 
branch  of  the  government  ....  his  advice  and  opin- 
ions, given  as  Attorney-General,  will  have  an  official 
influence,  beyond,  and  independent  of,  whatever 
intrinsic  merit  they  may  possess;  and  whether  it  be 
sound  policy  to  permit  this  officer  or  any  other  under 
the  government,  even  on  the  application  of  others,  to 
extend  the  influence  of  his  office  beyond  the  pale  of  law, 
and  to  cause  it  to  be  felt,  where  the  laws  have  not  con- 
templated that  it  should  be  felt  is  the  point  which  I  beg 
leave  to  submit.  "16 

The  conclusions  which  Wirt  drew  may  be  summar- 
ized. First,  and  above  all  things,  provision  should 
be  made  in  law  for  keeping  the  records  and  preserving 
the  documents  of  the  office.  This  would  make  for  con- 
sistency of  opinions  and  uniformity  of  practices. 
Second,  there  should  be  a  depository  in  the  office  of 
the  Attorney-General  for  the  statutes  of  the  various 
States,  statutes  which  might  be  needed  at  short  notice 
for  aid  in  solving  legal  problems.  In  this  matter  Wirt 
was  asking  simply  for  a  special  library  to  facilitate  his 
work.  Finally,  he  suggested  that  legal  restrictions  be 
placed  on  the  duties  of  the  officer  for  the  obvious 
reason  that  one  man  could  not  find  time  to  perform 
the  work  if  he  were  obliged  to  attend  to  such  miscella- 

16  Kennedy,  II,  64. 


THE  ATTORNEY-GENERALSHIP  169 

neous  calls  as  had  been  made  upon  the  time  and  energy 
of  his  predecessors.  The  experience  of  several  months 
had  already  shown  to  him  that  "very  little  time  is  left 
to  the  Attorney-General  to  aid  the  salary  of  his  office 
by  individual  engagements, ' '  a  fact,  he  thought,  which 
might  account  in  part  for  the  number  of  resignations 
which  had  occurred  among  his  predecessors. 

This  letter  marks  what  may  be  regarded  as  the 
beginning  of  a  new  epoch_in  the  history  of  the 
Attorney-General's  office.  So  far  as  the  position  of 
Attorney-General  could  be  shaped  and  its  functions 
vitalized,  Wirt  meant  that  these  things  should  be  done. 
It  cannot  be  said  that  Wirt's  suggestions  influenced 
directly  congressional  action,  for  there  is  no  direct 
proof  of  such  influence.  But  there  was  at  last  a  man 
in  the  Attorney-Generalship  who  had  a  few  definite 
ideas  on  the  subject  of  organization  which  he  was 
ready  to  make  effective.  This,  at  any  rate,  Congress 
must  have  understood.  After  his  long  occupancy — 
from  1817  to  1829 — the  office  had  certainly  risen  in 
importance  and  was  probably  considered  as  more 
closely  allied  to  the  whole  executive  administration 
than  ever  before. 

The  details  of  administrative  organization  it  is  not 
the  province  of  this  chapter  to  examine.  It  is  enough 
to  say  that  Wirt  was  provided  by  Congress  with  a  clerk 
in  1818  and  a  small  sum  of  money  ($500)  for  office- 
room  and  stationery.  In  response  to  criticism  over 
'inequalities  in  the  salaries  of  the  Secretaries,  these 
salaries  were  raised  and  equalized  in  1819;  and  the 
salary  of  the  Attorney-General  was  increased  at  the 


170  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

same  time  to  thirty-five  hundred  dollars.  Some 
other  improvements  of  a  minor  character  were 
accomplished.17 

Early  in  his  term  Wirt  had  intimated  to  the  House 
that  by  the  law  creating  his  position  he  could  not  be 
reckoned  legal  counsellor  to  that  body.  When,  in 
January,  1820,  the  House  sent  an  order  for  his  official 
opinion  on  a  certain  subject  then  before  them,  he 
deliberately  declined  to  give  the  opinion.  ' '  It  is  true, ' ' 
he  reasoned,  "that,  in  this  case,  I  should  have  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  House  ....  and  it  is  not  less  true  that 
my  respect  for  the  House  impels  me  strongly  to  obey 
the  order.  The  precedent,  however,  would  not  be  less 
dangerous  on  account  of  the  purity  of  the  motives  in 

which  it  originated I  may  be  wrong  in  my  view 

of  the  subject ;  the  order  may  be  sanctioned  by  former 
precedents;  but  my  predecessors  in  office  have  left 
nothing  for  my  guidance."18  He  was  no  less  explicit 
about  his  duty  when,  sought  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Navy  a  few  months  later  for  aid,  he  declared:  "As  my 
official  duty  is  confined  to  the  giving  my  opinion  on 
questions  of  law,  I  consider  myself  as  having  nothing 
to  do  with  the  settlement  of  controverted  questions  of 
fact."1* 

A  month  after  Wirt's  death,  his  friend,  Samuel  L. 

17  Annals  of  Congress,  15  Cong.,  1  sess.  (1817-1818),  II,  1779,  2566 
(Act  of  April  20,  1818,  sec.  6).  Hid.,  2  sess.  (1818-1819),  I,  21  ff., 
II,  2486  (Act  of  February  20,  1819).  Easby-Smith,  Department  of 
Justice,  p.  10,  for  sundry  details. 

is  House  Documents,  No.  68,  p.  2  (16  Cong.,  1  sess.,  vol.  V).  Wirt's 
letter  to  the  House  was  dated  February  3,  1820. 

19  Opinions,  p.  254.  April  3,  1820.  (House  Executive  Documents,  26 
Cong.,  2  sess.,  No.  123.) 


THE  ATTORNEY-GENERALSHIP  171 

Southard — for  some  years  his  colleague  in  the  Cabi- 
net— gave  a  public  address  on  Wirt's  career,  speaking 
on  March  18,  1834,  in  the  hall  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives at  Washington.  In  discussing  Wirt's  opin- 
ions as  Attorney-General,  Southard  said:  "They  all 
relate  to  matters  of  importance  in  the  construction  of 

the  laws They  will  prevent  much  uncertainty 

in  that  office  hereafter;  afford  one  of  the  best  collec- 
tions of  materials  for  writing  the  legal  and  constitu- 
tional history  of  our  country;  and  remain  a  proud 
monument  to  his  industry,  learning  and  talents.  "20 

In  1841,  seven  years  after  Wirt's  death,  the  first 
volume  of  the  series  known  as  the  Official  Opinions  of 
the  Attorneys-General  was  authorized  by  Congress 
and  issued.21  Similar  volumes  have  been  compiled  and 
printed  at  intervals  ever  since;  and  they  constitute 
to-day  a  well-known  and  useful  set.  They  amount  to 
official  justifications  of  the  conduct  of  our  Presidents. 
Unlike  our  custom,  it  is  the  practice  in  England  to 
regard  the  opinions  of  the  law  officers  of  the  Crown 
as  confidential — a  practice  which  is  considered  by 
some  writers  as  a  very  serious  loss  to  the  body  of 
English  jurisprudence.22 

In  the  first  volume,  Wirt's  opinions  filled  over  five 
hundred  pages  ra  a  total  of  1471.  Not  one  of  his  eight 
predecessors  was  represented  by  much  over  thirty 
pages.  The  five  men  who  came  after  him,  serving  in 
the  office  for  almost  exactly  eleven  years — from  1829 

20  S.  L.  Southard,  A  Discourse  on  the  Professional  Character  and  Vir- 
tues of  the  late  William  Wirt  (1834),  p.  36. 

21  House  Ex.  Doc'ts,  No.  123  (26  Cong.,  2  sess.). 

2238  American  Law  Eeview  (November-December,  1904),  pp.  924-925. 


172  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

to  1841 — equivalent  in  time  to  Wirt's  single  term,  left 
on  record  704  pages.  No  doubt  the  legal  business  of 
the  federal  government  increased  considerably  under 
Jackson  and  his  immediate  successors.  But  perhaps 
Wirt's  admirable  example  of  industry  may  have  had 
something  to  do  with  the  activity  of  the  Attorneys- 
General  following  him.23 

In  refusing  to  be  led  beyond  the  limits  prescribed  by 
law,  Wirt  doubtless  contracted  the  action  of  his  office. 
The  restrictions  thus  placed  upon  it,  however,  must 
have  made  its  relations  to  Congress  on  the  one  hand 
and  to  the  executive  department  on  the  other  clearer 
and  altogether  better  defined.  They  certainly  tended 
to  increase  the  usefulness  of  the  Attorney-General  as 
a  member  of  the  Cabinet. 


Ill 


The  administrative  work  of  the  government  had  by 
1830  increased  enormously.  This  was  due  to  some 
variety  of  causes:  expansion  of  territory,  growth  of 
population,  and  development  of  commerce  and  wealth. 
The  executive  departments  and  the  judiciary — con- 
fined, as  they  were  for  the  most  part,  to  their  primi- 
tive and  original  organizations — were  inadequately 
performing  their  functions.  John  Quincy  Adams  had 
appreciated  this  fact,  and  called  attention  to  it  in  his 

23  The  figures  in  this  paragraph  are  the  result  of  a  detailed  calcula- 
tion of  the  pages  in  the  volume  of  Opinions  already  cited.  To  make  the 
matter  quite  clear,  it  should  be  said  that  included  in  the  total  of  1471 
pages  there  was  an  appendix  of  odd  opinions,  which  extends  from  page 
1383  to  page  1471. 


THE  ATTORNEY-GENERALSHIP  173 

first  annual  message.24  Apparently,  however,  he  failed 
to  accomplish  anything  toward  remedying  it. 

When  Jackson  became  President  and  referred  to  the 
particular  need  of  attending  to  the  business  of  reor- 
ganizing the  Attorney-General's  office,  and  of  placing 
that  officer  ' '  on  the  same  footing  in  all  respects  as  the 
heads  of  the  other  departments, ' '  he  found  a  Congress 
ready  to  heed  his  suggestion.  Originally,  as  I  have 
shown,  the  office  had  left  its  incumbent  time  for  private 
practice.  By  Jackson's  day  it  was  reckoned  "one  of 
daily  duty."  Jackson  believed  it  important  that  the 
Attorney-General  should  not  be  summoned  away  from 
the  seat  of  government  on  anything  but  federal  busi- 
ness. With  a  reasonable  increase  in  salary  and  a  resi- 
dence requirement,  the  officer,  he  thought,  could  be 
charged  with  the  general  superintendence  of  the  gov- 
ernment's legal  concerns.25 

In  the  spring  of  1830  a  bill  bearing  on  the  suggested 
reform  was  introduced  into  the  Senate.  These  were 
its  chief  objects :  to  reorganize  the  office  of  the 
Attorney-General  in  such  a  way  as  to  erect  it  into  an 
executive  department;  to  transfer  to  it  from  the 
Department  of  State  the  work  of  the  Patent  Office ;  to 
give  to  the  Attorney-General  the  superintendence  of 
the  collection  of  debts  due  the  government;  and  to 
raise  the  salary  of  the  Attorney-General  to  six  thou- 
sand dollars — exactly  the  salary  that  was  by  that  time 
provided  for  every  one  of  the  four  Secretaries.  Such 
arrangements,  it  was  argued,  would  do  away  with  the 

24  Messages  and  Papers,  II,  314-315. 

25  Hid.,  II,  453  ff.,  527  ff. 


174  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

necessity,  at  any  rate  for  some  time  to  come,  of  organ- 
izing a  Home  Department — a  subject  which  had  been 
vigorously  discussed  for  a  good  many  years.  The 
plan  of  the  bill  would,  it  was  assumed,  debar  the 
Attorney-General  from  practice  other  than  what  he 
would  be  called  on  to  conduct  on  behalf  of  the  govern- 
ment in  the  Supreme  Court.  But  the  anomalous  posi- 
tion of  an  Attorney-General  so  burdened  must  have 
been  soon  apparent.  In  particular  the  plan  evidently 
ignored  the  essential  fact  that  the  Attorney-General 
was  primarily  a  law  officer.  Accordingly  it  was  easily 
defeated.26 

Senator  Daniel  Webster  opposed  this  bill.  He  had 
no  faith  in  the  attempt  thus  to  forestall  a  Home  De- 
partment. Moreover,  he  wished  the  Attorney-General 
still  to  enjoy  the  privilege  of  accepting  private  practice 
without  too  much  restriction.  The  old  salary  ($3,500) 
was  relatively  low  for  the  position,  but  not  too  low, 
it  was  urged,  because  the  Attorney-General  could  more 
than  make  up  to  himself  the  amount  of  compensation 
received  by  the  Secretaries  who  were  confined  strictly 
to  the  work  in  their  offices.27  According  to  the  views 
of  another  Senator,  to  permit  the  Attorney-General  to 
engage  in  private  practice  was  not  only  a  legitimate 
but  even  a  desirable  way  of  aiding  him  in  his  equip- 
ment for  performing  well  his  official  duties.28 

Although  the  bill  failed,  a  plan  was  finally  matured 
largely  through  Webster's  efforts,  formulated,  and 

^Register  of  Debates  (1829-1830),  VI,  Pt.  I,  pp.  276,  322    ff.,  404. 
27/Znd,  VI,  Pt.  I,  p.  324. 
28  Jfc^.,  VI,  Pt.  I,  p.  323. 


THE  ATTORNEY-GENERALSHIP  175 

enacted  into  law,  by  which  a  new  official  known  as 
Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  was  provided,  for  the  special 
purpose  of  aiding  the  Attorney-General  in  all  suits 
pertaining  to  treasury  claims.  And  for  the  additional 
responsibility  involved  in  the  new  relationship,  the 
vsalary  of  the  Attorney-General  was  raised  to  four 
thousand  dollars — an  amount  at  which  it  remained 
until  1853.29 

It  is  clear,  from  certain  reflections  in  his  second 
message  of  December  6,  1830,  that  President  Jackson 
was  dissatisfied  with  any  such  compromise  measure. 
However  useful  in  itself  the  provision  for  a  Solicitor 
of  the  Treasury  might  be,  it  was  not,  according  to  the 
President,  "calculated  to  supersede  the  necessity  of 
extending  the  duties  and  powers  of  the  Attorney- 
GeneraPs  Office.  On  the  contrary, "  Jackson  asserted, 
"I  am  convinced  that  the  public  interest  would  be 
greatly  promoted  by  giving  to  that  officer-  the  general 
superintendence  of  the  various  law  agents  of  the 
Government,  and  of  all  law  proceedings,  whether  civil 
or  criminal,  in  which  the  United  States  may  be  inter- 
ested, allowing  him  at  the  same  time  such  a  compensa- 
tion as  would  enable  him  to  devote  his  undivided  atten- 
tion to  the  public  business."30 

I  cannot  discover  that  Jackson  ever  again  expressed 

29 4  Statutes  at  Large,  chap,  cliii,  sec.  10.  "And  "be  it  further  enacted, 
That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  attorney  general  ....  at  the  request 
of  said  solicitor,  to  advise  with  and  direct  the  said  solicitor  as  to  the 
planner  of  conducting  the  suits,  proceedings,  and  prosecutions  afore- 
said; and  the  attorney  general  shall  receive  in  addition  to  his  present 
salary,  the  sum  of  five  hundred  dollars  per  annum."  May  29,  1830. 

30  Messages  and  Papers,  II,  527. 


176  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

himself  in  print,  after  these  utterances  of  1830,  on  the 
subject  of  reforming  the  office  of  the  Attorney- 
General.  Something  had  been  accomplished  to  remedy 
defects.  After  Jackson,  no  President  before  Polk  had 
anything  to  say  on  the  subject. 

Polk  argued  in  a  vein  similar  to  that  which  Jackson 
had  made  familiar.  He,  too,  wished  to  increase  the 
duties  and  responsibilities  of  the  officer ;  and  he  recom- 
mended that  he  be  placed  on  the  same  footing  as  the 
heads  of  departments,  for,  as  Polk  said,  "his  resi- 
dence and  constant  attention  at  the  seat  of  Govern- 
ment are  required. '  '31  Even  then  Congress  paid  no 
heed  to  the  matter  for  several  years.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  any  projects  of  administrative  reform 
were  seriously  interfered  with  by  the  war  with 
Mexico. 

In  this  connection  account  should  perhaps  be  taken 
of  a  curiously  interesting  paragraph  that  may  be 
found  in  a  circular  letter  addressed  by  Polk,  under 
date  of  February  17,  1845,  to  all  the  men  to  whom  he 
extended  invitations  to  become  his  cabinet  associates. 
"I  disapprove  the  practice  which  has  sometimes  pre- 
vailed, ' '  he  wrote,  ' l  of  Cabinet  officers  absenting  them- 
selves for  long  intervals  of  time  from  the  seat  of  gov- 
ernment, and  leaving  the  management  of  their  depart- 
ments to  chief  clerks,  or  other  less  responsible 
persons  than  themselves.  I  expect  myself  to  remain 
constantly  at  Washington,  unless  it  may  be  that  no 
public  duty  requires  my  presence,  when  I  may  be  occa- 
sionally absent,  but  then  only  for  a  short  time.  It  is, ' ' 

si  Messages,  IV,  415. 


THE  ATTORNEY-GENERALSHIP  177 

he  continued,  "by  conforming  to  this  rule  that  the 
President  and  his  Cabinet  can  have  any  assurance  that 
abuses  will  be  prevented,  and  that  the  subordinate 
executive  officers  connected  with  them  respectively  will 
faithfully  perform  their  duty."32 

Polk  of  course  exacted  this  significant  condition 
from  his  first  Attorney-General,  John  Y.  Mason  of 
Virginia.  But  the  Attorney-Generalship  had  two 
other  occupants,  Nathan  Clifford  of  Maine  and  Isaac 
Toucey  of  Connecticut — as  it  happened,  the  only  two 
appointments  (outside  the  circle  of  original  holders) 
to  cabinet  positions  during  the  whole  course  of  the 
administration  from  1845  to  1849.  From  a  very  brief 
statement  in  the  recently  published  Diary  of  President 
Polk,  it  appears  that  Polk  exacted  this  original  condi- 
tion from  Clifford.33  There  is  no  evidence  about  it  in 
the  case  of  Toucey.  What  we  may  be  sure  of  is  that 
Polk  intended,  so  far  as  it  was  within  his  power,  to 
establish  the  custom  of  keeping  his  cabinet  associates 
in  Washington  during  their  terms  of  service,  except 
for  the  briefest  possible  absences. 

IV 

There  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  Caleb  Cushing 
was  the  first  Attorney-General  of  the  United  States 
who  held  himself  strictly  to  the  residence  obligation — 

32  Works  of  James  Buchanan   (ed.  John  Bassett  Moore,  1909),  VT, 

no-in. 

•  33  The  Diary  of  James  K.  Polk  during  his  Presidency,  1845  to  1849 
(ed.  Milo  Milton  Quaife,  Chicago:  1910),  II,  193.  Folk's  memory  would 
seem  here  to  be  at  fault  in  referring  to  the  letter  addressed  to  each 
member  of  his  Cabinet  as  "in  March,  1845. " 


178  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

an  ideal,  as  we  have  seen,  that  had  been  gaining  ground 
since  1814 — and  refrained  from  the  general  practice 
of  the  law  during  his  term  as  a  federal  officer. 

Coming  into  office  in  March,  1853,  just  after  the 
salary  of  the  Attorney-General  had  been  raised  to 
eight  thousand  dollars,  Gushing  at  the  start  was 
placed,  in  respect  to  salary,  on  a  footing  of  equality 
with  his  cabinet  associates.  He  had  accordingly  no 
very  valid  reason  for  entering  into  private  practice 
in  or  outside  of  Washington.  Like  the  other  cabinet 
associates  of  Pierce,  Gushing  kept  his  place  through- 
out the  four  years '  term.  He  left  behind  him  a  collec- 
tion of  official  opinions  that  for  extent  alone  has  never 
been  equalled  either  before  or  since  his  day.  They 
fill  three  in  the  series  of  volumes  known  as  Official 
Opinions,  twenty-seven  of  which  have  thus  far  (1911) 
been  issued.34 

It  may  be  doubted  whether  Pierce  had  an  abler 
associate  among  his  advisers  than  Gushing,  although 
Jefferson  Davis  was  Secretary  of  War  and  William 
L.  Marcy  was  at  the  head  of  the  Department  of  State. 
Certainly  there  was  no  man  in  the  Cabinet  more 
trusted  by  the  President.  Pierce  held  him  in  the 
highest  regard.  That  he  was  of  great  assistance  in 
keeping  the  Cabinet  together  is  a  matter  of  authentic 
history.35 

Gushing  left  to  posterity  quite  the  most  careful 
considerations  on  the  historic  development  of  the 

3*  Gushing 's  opinions  fill  volumes  V,  VI,  and  VII,  extending  over 
upwards  of  2000  pages. 

35  Memorial  of  Caleb  Gushing  (Newburyport :  1879),  pp.  169  ff. 
7  Opinions  of  the  Attorneys-General,  pp.  453-482. 


THE  ATTORNEY-GENERALSHIP  179 

Attorney-Generalship  up  to  his  time.  These  have  been 
occasionally  quoted  since  they  were  written  and  are 
well  known.  Like  Wirt,  Gushing  determined  to  under- 
stand the  structure  and  functions  of  his  office  so  far 
as  the  laws  and  the  practices  of  his  predecessors  could 
reveal  them.  Instead  of  presenting  his  conclusions — 
as  Wirt  had  done — to  the  chairman  of  a  committee  of 
the  House,  he  offered  them  directly  to  the  President, 
in  itself  an  acknowledgment  of  the  relationship  of  his 
position.  They  were  written  under  date  of  March  8, 
1854,  at  the  end  of  his  first  year's  experience.  With 
the  technical  portions  of  the  " Opinion"  relating  to 
the  Attorney-General  and  the  courts,  this  inquiry 
is  not  concerned.  But  it  is  important  to  notice 
occasional  reflections  which  were  obviously  intended 
to  throw  light  on  the  relation  of  the  office  to  the 
executive.36 

According  to  the  original  theory  of  the  office,  the 
Attorney-General  was  prompted,  if  not  authorized  by 
the  President,  to  engage  in  private  practice  of  the  law. 
This  custom  in  the  case  of  the  English  Attorney- 
General37 — from  whose  office,  it  seemed  probable  to 
Gushing  that  we  had  borrowed  certain  features — was 
perfectly  well  understood  in  1789. 

Gushing  doubted  the  expediency  of  allowing  the 
head  of  a  department  to  continue  in  the  practice  of 
the  law  "under  any  circumstances."  He  was  willing 
to  admit  that  such  a  custom  might  once  have  been 

'  s6  6  Opinions  of  the  Attorneys-General,  pp.  326-355.  I  have  found  it 
convenient  to  use  the  opinion  as  it  appeared  in  the  American  Law  Regis- 
ter (December,  1856),  V,  65  ff. 

37  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  Pt.  II,  pp.  201-202. 


180  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

justifiable.  "Formerly,  in  an  age  of  simple  manners, 
when  the  public  expenditures  were  less,  the  number 
of  places  less,  the  population  of  the  country  less,  the 
frequentation  of  the  capital  less,  the  ingenuity  of  self- 
interest  less  ....  a  secretary,  eminent  in  the  legal 
profession  might,  without  the  possibility  of  reproach 
or  suspicion  of  evil,  take  charge  of  private  suits  or 
interests  at  the  seat  of  government.  He  may  do  so 
now,  perhaps;  but  that  is  not  so  clear  as  it  formerly 
was ;  and  it  is  not  easy  to  perceive  any  distinction  in 
this  between  what  befits  one  and  another  head  of 
department. ' '  As  for  himself,  he  remarked  that,  how- 
ever 1 1  all  these  things  may  be,  the  actual  incumbent  of 
this  office  ....  experiences  that  its  necessary  duties  are 
quite  sufficient  to  task  to  the  utmost  all  the  faculties 
of  one  man;  and  he  willingly  regards  those  recent 
acts,  which  have  at  length  placed  the  salary  of  his 
office  on  equal  footing  with  other  public  offices  of 
the  same  class,  as  intimation  at  least  that  the  Govern- 
ment has  the  same  precise  claim  on  his  services,  in 
time  and  degree,  as  on  those  of  the  Secretary  of  State 
or  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury."38 

It  must  be  clear  from  the  passage  that  Gushing 
regarded  himself  not  only  as  the  peer  of  his  cabinet 
associates,  but  as  in  some  sense  head  of  a  department, 
although  he  occupied  what  the  law  termed  an  *  '  Office. ' 9 
This  was  the  conception  of  the  position  to  which 
General  Benjamin  F.  Butler  alluded  when,  in  1879, 
in  paying  a  tribute  to  Gushing,  he  declared  that  he  had 
"raised  the  office  of  Attorney-General,  and  organized 

38  American  Law  "Register,  V,  93. 


THE  ATTORNEY-GENERALSHIP  181 

it  to  be  in  truth  and  in  fact  a  department  of  the  Gov- 
ernment." At  any  rate,  many  of  Gushing 's  sugges- 
tions for  a  better  organization  of  the  work  of  the 
Attorney-General  were  enacted  into  the  laws  between 
March,  1854 — the  date  of  his  "Opinion" — and  June, 
1870,  when  the  Attorney-General  was  named  in  the 
law  as  head  of  the  Department  of  Justice.40 

The  English  Attorney-General  has  never  been  recog- 
nized as  a  member  of  the  English  Cabinet.41  When 
Richard  Bush  was  in  England  in  1818,  after  an  expe- 
rience of  beveral  years  as  Attorney-General  under 
President  Madison,  he  could  not  help  considering  the 
absence  of  the  English  Attorney-General  from  the 
Cabinet  as  strange  and  worthy  of  comment,  and  later 
he  said  that  "in  the  complicated  and  daily  workings 
of  the  machine  of  free  government  throughout  a  vast 
empire,  1  could  still  see  room  for  the  constant  pres- 
ence of  the  attorney-general  in  the  cabinet."42  The 
comment  came  naturally  out  of  his  own  experience, 
and  probably  reflected  Rush's  familiarity  with  the 
American  tradition,  for  since  the  beginning  of  our 
government  the  Attorney-General  had  been  reckoned 
an  intimate  adviser  of  the  President.  We  have  an 
indirect  statement  from  Washington  on  the  point.43 
Monroe  expressed  himself  clearly  in  the  matter,  as  we 

39  Memorial,  op.  cit.,  p.  169. 

40  Easby-Smith,  The  Department  of  Justice,  pp.  15  ff. 

41  Anson,  Law  and  Custom,  Pt.  II,  p.  202. 

42  M emoranda  of  a  Eesidence  at  the  Court  of  London  (2d  ed.,  Phila- 
delphia: 1833),  p.  63. 

«C.  W.  Upham,  Life  of  Timothy  Pickering  (1867ff.),  Ill,  226.  I 
have  cited  definite  instances,  in  chapter  V  of  this  volume,  of  records  of 
cabinet  meetings  under  Washington  which  Eandolph  attended. 


182  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

have  seen.  And  such  intimate  sources  as  the  Memoirs 
of  John  Quincy  Adams,  the  Diary  of  President  Polk, 
and — more  recently  still — the  Diary  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Navy,  Gideon  Welles,  have  furnished  ample 
proof  of  the  American  practice. 

Gushing 's  reflections  on  the  Cabinet  were  particu- 
larly illuminating.  It  was,  he  perceived,  an  important 
means  of  attaining  unity  in  executive  decision  and 
action.  This  unity,  he  declared,  "cannot  be  obtained 
by  means  of  a  plurality  of  persons  wholly  independent 
of  one  another,  without  corporate  conjunction,  and 
released  from  subjection  to  one  determining  will." 
It  was  in  substance  the  very  point  of  view  that  Alex- 
ander Hamilton  had  taken  of  the  matter  as  far  back 
as  1792.45 

With  reference   to   the   principal  officers   Gushing 
remarked  that  "the  established  sense  of  the  subordi 
nation  of  all  of  them  to  the  President  has  ....  come 
to  exist,  partly  by  construction  of  the  constitutiona 
duty  of  the  President  to  take  care  that  the  laws  be 
faithfully    executed,    and    his    consequent    necessary 
relation  to  the  heads  of  departments,  and  partly  by 
deduction  from  the  analogies  of  statutes. ' >46    About  a 
year  and  a  half  after  he  had  written  these  reflections 
he  devoted  an  entire  "Opinion"  to  a  consideration  o: 
the  relation  of  the  President  to  the  executive  depart 
ments.47 

44  American  Law  Register,  V,  81. 
«  Supra,  chapter  VI,  p.  135. 

46  American  Law  Register,  V,  71. 

47  August  31,  1855.     7  Opinions  of  the  Attorneys-General,  pp.  453 
482. 


THE  ATTORNEY-GENERALSHIP  183 

Gushing 's  usefulness  to  Pierce  as  a  cabinet  coun- 
sellor, his  talents,  Ms  learning,  and  Ms  persistent 
industry  on  behalf  of  the  administration — all  these 
matters  should  not  make  us  overlook  certain  weak- 
nesses of  which  his  contemporaries  were  aware.  In 
1847  James  Eussell  Lowell — at  the  time  rather  less 
than  thirty  years  of  age — satirized  Gushing  in  the 
Biglow  Papers: 

Gineral  C.  is  a  dreffle  smart  man; 

He's  ben  on  all  sides  thet  give  places  or  pelf; 
But  consistency  still  wuz  a  part  of  his  plan, — 

He's  ben  true  to  one  party — an'  thet  is  himself ** 

Senator  Benton  of  Missouri,  in  a  speech  delivered 
in  July,  1856,  acknowledged  that  Gushing  was  the 
"master-spirit"  of  Pierce 's  Cabinet,  but — cleverly 
adapting  a  well-known  passage  from  Hamlet — he  burst 
into  the  assertion  that  he  was  "unscrupulous,  double- 
sexed,  double-gendered,  and  hermaphroditic  in  poli- 
tics, with  a  hinge  in  his  knee,  which  he  often  crooks, 
that  thrift  may  follow  fawning. "  In  a  word,  Gushing 
governed  by  subserviency.49 

Gushing  was  never  able  to  win  completely  the  trust 
of  his  fellows.  Yet  he  proved  to  be  a  useful  statesman. 
Both  Buchanan  and  Grant  at  different  times  sought 
his  aid.  He  was  among  the  legal  experts  chosen  as 
counsel  to  assist  the  Geneva  Tribunal.  President 
Grant  actually  named  him  as  Ghief-Justice  of  the 

48  Quoted  by  J.  F.  Khodes,  History  of  the  United  States  since  the 
Compromise  of  1850  (1892  ff.),  I,  392. 

49  The  whole  passage  was  used  by  Von  Hoist,  History  of  the  United 
States,  IV,  263,  foot  note. 


184  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Supreme  Court,  but  was  virtually  forced  at  the  last 
moment  to  withdraw  his  name  from  the  Senate. 
Looking  back  over  a  long  life,  which  extended  from 
1800  to  January,  1879,  it  still  seems  fair  to  conclude 
that  in  no  task  did  Caleb  Cushing  prove  himself  more 
useful  than  in  that  of  the  Attorney-Generalship.  He 
was  the  ablest  organizer  that  the  office  had  had  since 
its  establishment  in  1789.50 


The  innumerable  legal  problems  created  by  the 
Civil  War  or  following  closely  in  its  train  brought 
great  pressure  of  work  on  the  office  of  the  Attorney- 
General.  By  that  period  an  administrative-judicial- 
organization  had  been  developed  that  proved  under 
the  new  circumstances  distinctly  out  of  joint.  Various 
legal  officers  in  the  separate  departments  gave  opin- 
ions to  the  Secretaries  which  were  at  times  incon- 
sistent with,  if  not  actually  opposed  to,  those  of  the 
Attorney-General.  Tasks  were  duplicated.  In  brief, 
there  was  no  definite  provision  in  law  which  tended  to 
unify  or  bring  to  one  master-mind  the  direction  of  the 
legal  work  of  the  government.  As  a  consequence  that 
work  lacked  symmetry  and  consistency. 

The  four  chief  law-officers  in  1861 — with  the 
dates  of  their  separate  establishments — were  the 
Attorney-General  (1789),  the  Assistant  Attorney- 
General  (1859),  the  Solicitor  of  the  Court  of  Claims 

so  I  have  depended,  for  this  sketch,  upon  Ehodes,  Von  Hoist,  and  the 
material  in  the  Memorial  of  1879.  The  generalization  is  based  upon 
these  and  the  parts  of  Gushing  Js  "Opinions"  that  I  have  used. 


THE  ATTORNEY-GENERALSHIP  185 

(1855),  and  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  (1830).  The 
latter  officer  was,  as  we  have  seen,  a  rather  anomalous 
factor  in  the  Treasury  Department  who,  for  certain 
purposes,  was  under  the  direction  of  the  Attorney- 
General.  Subordinate  to  these  and  controlled  by  the 
Attorney-General  from  1861  there  was  a  large  corps 
of  scattered  district  attorneys.51  The  whole  organiza- 
tion was  very  loosely  knit  and  disjointed.  It  was 
truly  said  that  the  law  business  of  the  government 
during  the  period  of  the  Civil  War  "  greatly  outgrew 
the  capacity  of  the  persons  authorized  to  transact  it, 
and  the  number  of  outside  counsel  ....  appointed 
subsequently  to  1861  was  greater  than  all  the  commis- 
sioned law  officers  of  the  Government  in  every  part 
of  the  country.  "52 

The  cost  of  this  extra  counsel  was  large — how  large, 
it  would  be  quite  impossible  to  say  with  any  assurance 
of  accuracy.  Figures  were  brought  forward  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  to  show  that  nearly  half  a 
million  dollars  ($475,190.42)  could  be  thus  accounted 
for  during  a  portion  of  the  years  from  1861  to  1867. 
More  than  half  that  amount  ($258,018.44)  went,  it  was 
said,  to  pay  for  extra  legal  counsel  employed  during 
the  years  1868-1869.  To  William  M.  Evarts  alone, 
fees  for  occasional  legal  aid  to  the  government 
amounted,  by  1867,  to  approximately  fifty  thousand 
dollars  ($47,545.86).  It  is  certainly  well  within  the 
range  of  truth  to  say  that  the  government  was  obliged 

51  Easby-Smith,  Department  of  Justice,  pp.  16,  28-30. 

52  Congressional  Globe,  41  Cong.,  2  sess.,  Pt.  IV,  p.  3035  (April  27, 
1870). 


186  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

to  pay  a  hundred  thousand  dollars  annually  during 
the  decade  1860-1870.53 

These  were  significant  facts.  They  were  used, 
moreover,  in  Congress  to  direct  attention  to  many 
administrative  weaknesses  in  the  federal  organization. 
Whatever  changes  of  organization  might  be  accom- 
plished, it  was  felt  that  a  department  of  justice  must 
be  provided.  As  late  as  the  spring  of  1870,  when  the 
bill  for  such  a  department  was  almost  matured, 
Thomas  A.  Jenckes  of  Ehode  Island  declared  that  the 
special  reason  why  the  committee  had  reported  it 
"earlier  than  any  other  relating  to  the  organization 
of  the  Departments  is  the  great  expense  the  Govern- 
ment have  been  put  to  in  the  conduct  of  the  numerous 
litigations  involving  titles  to  property  worth  millions 
of  dollars,  rights  to  personal  liberty,  and  all  the 
numerous  litigations  which  can  arise  under  the  law 
of  war. ' >54 

The  heritage  of  war  expenditures  had  assumed  such 
ominous  proportions  that  in  1867  Congress  appointed 
a  so-called  Joint  Committee  on  Eetrenchments.  This 
committee,  impelled  perhaps  by  certain  recommenda- 
tions concerning  the  reorganization  of  the  office  set 
forth  by  Attorney-General  Henry  Stanbery,  in  De- 
cember of  that  year,  was  attracted  to  an  investigation 
of  the  legal  work  of  the  government.  On  December  12, 
1867,  Representative  Lawrence  of  Ohio  offered  a  reso- 
lution looking  toward  a  consolidation  of  all  the  law 

53  The  figures  are  gathered  from  the  debates  in  the  House  of  April 
27,  1870. 

54  Globe,  April  27,  1870. 


THE  ATTORNEY-GENERALSHIP  187 

officers  of  the  government  at  Washington  into  one 
department.  That  resolution  seems  to  mark  the  begin- 
ning of  legislative  effort.  For  more  than  two  years 
following,  the  subject  remained  in  the  background  of 
public  discussion.  It  was  lost  to  sight  largely  because 
of  subjects  of  a  more  pressing  and  sensational  nature. 
But  it  may  be  traced  during  the  sessions  of  the  Thirty- 
ninth,  Fortieth,  and  Forty-first  Congresses.  Finally, 
after  a  vigorous  effort  early  in  1870 — admirably 
directed  in  the  House  by  Jenckes — a  measure  was 
enacted  and  approved  by  President  Grant  on  June 
22,  1870.  This  act  erected  the  old  Office  of  the 
Attorney-General  into  the  Department  of  Justice.55 

The  chief  purpose  of  this  chapter  is  to  reveal  the 
historic  features  of  the  Attorney-Generalship  which 
throw  light  on  the  relations  of  the  Attorney-General 
as  a  more  or  less  efficient  adviser  and  assistant  to  the 
President  and  his  cabinet  associates.  Hence  the  act 
of  1870,  apart  from  its  more  technical  details,  has  a 
peculiar  interest,  for  it  represented  a  mature  and 
honest  effort  to  make  effective  an  ideal  with  respect 
to  the  Attorney-General  that  had  been  occasionally 
formulated  since  Andrew  Jackson's  day.  The  act 
really  created  no  new  department.  Legal  business  in 
the  various  departments,  hitherto  scattered  and  at 
loose  ends,  was  transferred  to  the  Attorney-General. 
By  placing  the  Attorney-General  at  last  upon  "pre- 
cisely ....  the  same  footing  as  the  other  heads  of 
Departments,"  the  act  made  him  in  fact  the  chief  law 

K  Globe,  op.  cit.,  p.  3039.  Easby-Smith,  Department  of  Justice,  p.  17. 
16  Statutes  at  Large,  pp.  162-165. 


188  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

officer  of  the  government.    In  brief,  it  transformed  the 
old  office  into  a  symmetrical  organization.56 

There  was  an  occasional  remark  during  the  debates 
that  revealed  perfect  familiarity  with  old  traditions, 
as  when  Kepresentative  Lawrence  declared  that  the 
Cabinet  "is  the  creature  of  usage  only.  But  since  the 
establishment  of  the  office  of  Attorney-General, "  he 
commented,  "the  Attorney-General  has  been  a  member 
of  the  Cabinet  by  usage  just  as  much  as  any  head  of 
a  Department.  He  ought  to  be  in  the  Cabinet.  There 
ought  not  to  be  a  Cabinet  without  a  law  officer. '  '57  We 
may  be  certain  that  Eichard  Rush,  had  he  been  alive, 
would  have  taken  the  same  view  of  the  matter.58 

A  chief  object  of  the  act  of  1870  was  to  make  it  pos- 
sible to  create  a  staff  sufficiently  large  to  transact  the 
law  business  of  the  government  in  all  parts  of  the 
country.  If  assistant  counsel  were  employed,  these 
extra  men  were  to  be  designated  either  as  assistant 
district  attorneys  or  as  assistants  to  the  Attorney- 
General;  and  so,  holding  commissions  as  such,  they 
could  be  made — in  fact  they  became — strictly  respon- 
sible to  the  Attorney-General  for  the  performance  of 
duties  that  might  be  assigned  to  them.59 

During  the  development  of  administrative-legal 
work,  law  officers  had  been  provided  in  the  various 
executive  departments  from  time  to  time  as  they  were 
needed.  '  t  Following  the  precedent  set  in  the  creation 

56  Globe,  op.  cit.,  p.  3067.    April  28. 

57  Ibid. 

58  Supra,  p.  181. 

59  Globe,  op.  cit.,  p.  3035. 


THE  ATTORNEY-GENERALSHIP  189 

of  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  by  the  act  of  1830, " 
remarked  one  speaker,  "we  have  authorized  the 
appointment  of  an  assistant  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury, 
and  also  a  Solicitor  of  the  Internal  Revenue;  and 
during  the  war  we  had  a  Solicitor  of  the  War  Depart- 
ment and  an  assistant  Solicitor  of  the  War  Depart- 
ment  We  also  created  a  law  officer  for  the  Navy 

Department,  and  in  the  course  of  time  a  law  officer  has 
been  created  for  the  Post-Office  Department."60  Such 
facts  revealed  at  once  the  possibilities  of  contradictory 
opinions  coming  from  the  various  legal  officers,  and 
the  consequent  confusion. 

In  what  way  this  confusion  might  affect  the 
Attorney-General  under  the  old  regime,  and  so  the 
President,  may  be  readily  seen  from  another  passage 
in  the  debates  of  1870.  The  President  takes  the  opin- 
ions of  the  heads  of  departments,  it  was  declared; 
"yet,  as  the  law  now  stands,  it  is  perfectly  apparent 
that  the  law  officers  of  the  several  Departments  may 
advise  the  heads  of  Departments  in  one  way  upon 
subjects  of  public  importance  affecting  their  Depart- 
ments, and  the  Attorney-General  may  advise  the 
President  and  the  Cabinet,  when  they  are  assembled, 
in  a  totally  different  way  upon  the  same  subject.  Now 
....  it  is  utterly  impossible  that  the  President  can 
intelligently  advise  Congress  or  act  without  embar- 
rassment on  affairs  relating  to  our  international 
rights,  obligations  and  duties  when  there  is  a  law 
officer  in  the  State  Department,  as  now,  advising  the 
head  of  that  Department  in  one  way  while  the 

®Ibid.,  p.  3036. 


190  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Attorney-General  may  be  advising  the  President  in  a 

different  way We  have  an  officer  called  an 

examiner  of  claims,  the  law  officer  of  the  State  Depart- 
ment, advising  the  Secretary  of  State  in  matters 
affecting  our  foreign  relations,  our  duties  and  obli- 
gations, while  the  President  and  Cabinet  are  receiving 
advice  from  the  Attorney-General/'61 

The  act  of  1870  brought  the  solicitors  in  the 
various  departments  under  the  ultimate  control  of 
the  Attorney-General.  Whatever  official  opinions 
these  solicitors  might  be  called  upon  to  give,  must 
henceforth  be  recorded  in  the  office  of  the  Attorney- 
General.  There,  before  they  could  become  the  exec- 
utive law  for  the  guidance  of  inferior  officials,  these 
opinions  were  stamped  with  the  Attorney-General's 
final  approval.  "It  is,"  asserted  Eepresentative 
Jenckes,  "for  the  purpose  of  having  a  unity  of  deci- 
sion, a  unity  of  jurisprudence,  if  I  may  use  that 
expression,  in  the  executive  law  of  the  United  States, 
that  this  bill  proposes  that  all  the  law  officers  therein 
provided  for  shall  be  subordinate  to  one  head."62 

The  act  made  provision  for  the  creation  of  one  new 
law  officer  of  large  importance — the  Solicitor-General 
of  the  United  States.  It  was  proposed  to  have  in  this 
new  position  "a  man  of  sufficient  learning,  ability  and 
experience  that  he  can  be  sent  to  New  Orleans  or  to 
New  York,  or  into  any  court  wherever  the  Govern- 
ment has  any  interest  in  litigation,  and  there  present 
the  case  of  the  United  States  as  it  should  be  pre- 

61  Globe,  op.  cit.,  p.  3065. 
.,  p.  3036. 


THE  ATTORNEY-GENERALSHIP  191 

sented."1  The  express  language  of  the  law  required 
him  to  be  "learned  in  the  law"  —  a  requirement  that 
had  originally,  in  the  law  of  1789,  been  exacted  of  the 
Attorney-General,  but  for  some  unknown  reason  was 
omitted  in  the  law  of  1870,  so  far  as  the  latter  officer 
was  concerned. 

According  to  the  characterization  of  Representative 
James  A.  Garfield,  the  act  of  June,  1870,  was  "sub- 
stantive legislation."  There  was  comparatively  little 
opposition  to  it  in  Congress,  for  it  was  easily  seen  that 
it  placed  the  government's  law  work  on  an  orderly 
and  well-arranged  basis. 

VI 

By  an  act  approved  on  January  19,  1886,64  the  Attor- 
ney-General was  definitely  reckoned  as  fourth  in  the 
line  of  possible  succession  to  the  Presidency  in  case  of 
the  removal,  death,  resignation  or  inability  of  Presi- 
dent and  Vice-President.  This  act  was  due  largely  to 
the  persistent  efforts  of  Senator  George  F.  Hoar  of 
Massachusetts.  The  occasion  of  these  efforts  was  the 
conviction  in  the  public  mind  —  aroused  by  the  attempt 
in  July,  1881,  to  kill  President  Garfield  —  of  the  grave 
and  serious  necessity  of  placing  new  safeguards  about 
the  life  of  the  chief  magistrate. 

The  original  law  of  March,  1792,  which  provided  for 
the  succession  to  the  Presidency,  had  declared  that,  in 
case  of  vacancy,  "the  President  of  the  Senate  pro 
tempore,  and  in  case  there  shall  be  no  President  of  the 


p.  3035. 
64  24  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  1. 


192  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Senate,  then  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, for  the  time  being,  shall  act  as  President  of  the 
United  States,  until  the  disability  be  removed,  or  a 
President  shall  be  elected.  "65  Even  at  the  epoch  of 
its  formulation  the  principle  underlying  this  lan- 
guage was  not  considered  sound  by  such  men  as  Madi- 
son, Gouverneur  Morris,  Livermore  and  Fitzsimons. 
There  were  suggestions  at  the  time  that  it  might  be 
wiser  to  call  on  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court 
or  the  Secretary  of  State.  And  in  the  Philadelphia 
Convention,  on  August  27,  1787,  Madison — with  what 
seems  in  the  light  of  the  law  of  1886  almost  prophetic 
insight — had  "suggested  that  the  executive  powers 
during  a  vacancy  be  administered  by  the  persons  com- 
posing the  council  to  the  President. ' >66  But  the  Senate, 
having  originated  the  form  of  statement  of  the  law  of 
1792,  were  unwilling  to  alter  it.  Accordingly  the 
above  language  was  at  length  adopted  and  went  into 
the  statute-book.67 

The  subject  of  the  succession  was  next  brought  con- 
spicuously into  public  notice  in  June,  1856,  by  Senator 
John  J.  Crittenden  of  Kentucky.  Crittenden  had 
become  impressed  by  the  fact  that  from  the  fourth  of 
March  to  the  first  week  of  December  in  every  second 
year  there  was  no  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives. He  was  accordingly  moved  to  present  a  reso- 
lution to  the  Senate  which  called  on  the  Judiciary 
Committee  of  that  body  to  examine  the  subject  and 

65  l  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  240. 

66  Elliot,  Debates,  V,  480. 

67  Annals  of  Congress  under  dates  of  December  20,  1790,  January  10, 
13,  October  24,  November  15,  23,  30,  December  1,  21,  1791,  etc. 


THE  ATTORNEY-GENERALSHIP  193 

make  a  report.  On  the  following  August  5  a  report — 
familiarly  known  as  the  "Butler  Report"  from 
Senator  Pierce  Butler  of  South  Carolina,  chairman — 
was  read  to  the  Senate.  The  Eeport  was  concluded 
with  a  carefully  formulated  bill.  The  bill  was  never 
acted  upon.  The  Eeport,  buried  in  a  volume  of  Senate 
documents,  was  lost  sight  of  and  apparently  forgotten 
for  many  years.68 

The  Butler  Report  attempted  to  supplement  the 
original  law  of  1792.  On  the  assumption  that  there 
was  no  President  of  the  Senate  pro  tempore  or 
Speaker  of  the  House,  it  declared  "that  the  duties 
prescribed  by  act  of  Congress  shall  devolve  on  the  fol- 
lowing officers :  first,  on  the  chief  justice,  when  he  has 
not  participated  in  the  trial  of  the  President ;  and  next, 
on  the  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court,  according  to  the 
date  of  their  commissions. '  '69  This  was  the  single  con- 
structive recommendation.  It  is,  however,  worthy  of 
note  that  the  authors  first  of  all  stated  their  belief  that 
the  members  of  the  Cabinet  "in  some  prescribed 
order"  were  "the  proper  functionaries  to  fill  the 
vacancy.  In  cases  of  death,"  continued  the  record, 
"they  would  be  the  persons  most  fit  for  the  occasion. 
There  are  other  circumstances,  however,  which  would 
make  the  cabinet  officers  unfit  to  occupy  the  place  of 
the  President.  In  case  of  his  impeachment  for  high 
political  offences,  the  cabinet  might  be  implicated,  as 
participes  criminis,  and  ought  not  to  be  in  position  of 

68  Senate  Documents  (1855-1856),  II,  No.  260,  pp.  7.    The  debate  may 
be  followed  in  the  Congressional  Globe,  34  Cong.,  1  sess.   (1855-1856), 
Pt.  II,  pp.  1476,  1930-1931,  2020. 

69  Butler  Eeport,  p.  5. 


194  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

allies. "  The  question,  moreover,  as  to  whether  the 
Cabinet  could  be  considered  an  official  body  after  the 
functions  of  the  President — its  head — had  terminated 
or  were  suspended,  was  puzzling  to  the  committee, 
and  was  left  unanswered.70 

Within  a  week  of  the  shooting  of  Garfield,  the  Butler 
Report  was  referred  to  in  the  public  discussions  over 
the  possible  consequences  of  the  tragedy.  In  particu- 
lar Senator  James  B.  Beck  of  Kentucky  called  atten- 
tion to  it  in  a  letter  to  the  Louisville  Courier-Jour- 
nal.11 In  the  following  autumn — Garfield  having  died 
on  September  19 — it  happened  that  the  country  was 
without  either  a  President  of  the  Senate  or  a  Speaker 
of  the  House  of  Representatives,  for  Congress  had  not 
yet  assembled.  Should  the  immediate  successor  of 
Garfield,  President  Arthur,  die,  there  existed  no  pro- 
vision in  law  for  a  new  President.  Statesmen  were 
alarmed  over  a  possible  predicament.  Efforts  to 
remedy  the  defect  of  the  law  were  begun  almost  as 
soon  as  Congress  assembled  in  December,  1881.  And 
these  efforts  were  continued  at  intervals  during  three 
successive  Congresses — the  Forty-seventh,  the  Forty- 
eighth,  and  the  Forty-ninth.  Senator  Hoar's  persist- 
ency was  finally  rewarded  early  in  1886. 

Hoar  was  the  author  of  the  bill  that  became  the  law. 
1  i  I  drew  and  introduced  the  existing  law, ' '  he  remarked 
many  years  later  in  his  well-known  Autobiography  of 
Seventy  Years,  where  he  saw  fit  to  quote  the  statute 
in  its  entirety.72  The  substance  of  his  bill  seems  to 

70  Butler  Eeport,  pp.  4-5. 

71  Congressional  Record,  December  16,  1885. 
72 II,  170-171. 


THE  ATTORNEY-GENERALSHIP  195 

have  been  suggested  to  him  by  certain  remarks  of  his 
brother,  Hon.  Ebenezer  B.  Hoar,  in  a  speech  made  by 
the  latter  in  the  House  of  Representatives  sometime 
between  1873  and  1875.73  Introducing  the  subject  of 
succession  in  the  last  stage  of  his  effort,  Senator  Hoar 
remarked  that  one  of  the  important  alterations  to  be 
made  in  the  existing  law — that  of  1792 — :was  the  sub- 
stitution of  "  members  of  the  Cabinet  in  the  order  of 
their  official  seniority — the  order  in  which  the  various 
Departments  were  created,  except  that  the  head  of  the 
Department  of  Justice,  which  is  the  last  Department 
created  by  law,  is  continued  in  his  old  place  as  Attor- 
ney-General, ranking  the  heads  of  the  Departments 
created  since  the  original  establishment  of  the  Cabi- 
net."74 

The  passage  furnishes  an  admirable  statement  of 
the  principle  that  the  statute  of  1886  carried  into 
effect.  In  accordance  with  the  passage  the  Attor- 
ney-General, who  had  been  regarded  as  a  cabinet- 
associate  of  the  President  from  Washington's  admin- 
istration, was  definitely  acknowledged  as  a  peer  among 
his  colleagues — a  position  that  he  had  actually  held 
since  1853. 

731  have  not  been  able  to  discover  this  speech  after  scanning  the 
Congressional  Record  over  the  years,  1873-1875.  Hoar  acknowledged  his 
indebtedness  to  his  brother  on  December  16,  1885. 

74  Congressional  Record,  December  16,  1885. 


NOTE 

THE  ATTORNEY-GENERAL  AND  PRIVATE  PRACTICE  SINCE 
1854: 

There  is  no  conclusive  evidence  that  I  can  discover 
which  would  indicate  that  Caleb  Gushing  (Attorney- 
General  from  1853  to  1857),  or  any  of  his  successors 
in  the  Attorney-Generalship,  have  ever  taken  private 
law  cases  while  they  were  acting  as  federal  office- 
holders. This  opinion  is  based  upon  a  careful  effort 
to  exhume  evidence  that  would  justify  a  contrary  point 
of  view. 

The  problem  may  be  formulated  in  this  way : 

In  case  the  Attorney-General  found  his  salary  inadequate, 
and  determined  for  this  or  any  other  reason  to  take  a  small 
amount  of  private  practice,  would  he  be  violating  any  cus- 
tom or  rule  of  honor  in  undertaking  it?  In  other  words: 
Are  there  any  instances  between  1854 — the  date  of  Gush- 
ing's  well-known  argument  against  the  custom — and  1909, 
to  indicate  that  the  Attorney-General  has  at  times,  either 
with  or  without  the  knowledge  of  the  President,  accepted 
private  cases  which  have  not  involved  the  interests  of  the 
federal  government? 

At  various  times  I  have  taken  opportunity  to  pro- 
pound this  problem  to  men  living  in  Washington,  D.  C., 
who  seemed  likely  to  be  able  to  throw  light  upon  it.  I 
have  examined  many  law  cases,  in  hopes  of  finding 
some  clue  here  or  there  in  the  State  Reports.  In  a 
vain  effort  to  secure  printed  evidence,  I  was  obliged  to 
fall  back  on  two  different  opinions,  both  of  them 
common  enough  in  Washington. 


THE  ATTORNEY-GENERALSHIP  197 

A.  An  official  associated  for  a  great  many  years 
with  the  Attorney-General's  office,  both  before  and 
since  1870,  is  positive  that  the  Attorneys-General  con- 
tinued, with  perhaps  an  occasional  exception,  to  accept 
private  practice  down  to  President  Cleveland's  first 
administration  (1885).    This  official,  indeed,  specified 
a  few  instances  since  that  time  among  the  Attorneys- 
General  who,  he  was  sure,  accepted  private  cases.    He 
assumed  that  in  these  various  instances  no  rule  of 
honor  and  no  custom  were  considered  to  be  violated. 

B.  The  other  opinion  is  a  direct  denial  of  this  view. 
"No  Attorney-General, "  runs  the  statement,  "would 
think  for  a  moment  of  accepting  a  private  case  while 
occupying  the  federal  office. ' '    A  well-known  ex-Secre- 
tary of  State,  who  has  been  deeply  interested  in  the 
history  of  American  diplomacy  and  political  practices, 
holds  to  this  view.    Yet  this  particular  gentleman  was 
obliged,  after  careful  inquiry,  to  admit  that  he  dis- 
covered that  opinion  A  was  firmly  believed  by  several 
officials  with  whom  he  had  spoken. 

Of  course  men  summoned  from  the  active  practice 
of  the  law  to  the  Attorney-Generalship  must  frequently 
take  the  office  while  law  cases  in  which  they  are  inter- 
ested are  still  pending.  It  seems  entirely  probable 
that  in  such  instances  there  may  have  to  be  a  confi- 
dential understanding  with  the  President  in  order  that 
a  man's  regular  practice  may  not  suffer  because  of  his 
new  occupation.  At  any  rate,  lawyers  owe  certain 
obligations  to  their  clients  which  cannot  be  surren- 
dered at  once.  Often,  especially  where  an  Attorney- 
General  is  a  member  of  a  firm,  the  legal  work  may  be 


198  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

assumed  and  carried  on  by  the  firm.  Such  leading 
firms  in  the  past  as  Black  &  Phelan  ( J.  S.  Black,  Attor- 
ney-General, 1857-1860),  Speed  &  Smith  (Joshua 
Speed,  Attorney-General,  1864-1866),  Thayer  &  Wil- 
liams (G.  H.  Williams,  Attorney-General,  1872-1875), 
and  Harmon,  Colston,  Goldsmith  &  Hoadley  (Judson 
Harmon,  Attorney-General,  1895-1897),  were  not  dis- 
solved because  their  leading  member  went  to  Wash- 
ington in  an  official  capacity. 

I  submit  the  problem  to  the  reader.  I  should  be  glad 
to  know  where  to  find  evidence  that  would  afford  a 
solution  of  it. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE  SECEETAEYSHIP  OF  THE  NAVY 

ON  April  30,  1798,  on  the  eve  of  probable  war  with 
France,  President  John  Adams  approved  and 
signed  a  bill  formulated  for  the  purpose  of  establish- 
ing an  executive  department  to  be  called  the  Depart- 
ment of  the  Navy.  The  bill,  enacted  into  law,1  was  the 
outcome  of  various  ideas  and  circumstances  which  had 
tended  toward  its  formulation  since  the  early  days  of 
the  American  Eevolution. 


The  first  impulse  toward  a  naval  administrative 
organization  came  largely  from  New  England,  the 
commercial  center  of  the  colonies.  It  may  be  detected 
in  1775,  soon  after  the  outbreak  of  the  Eevolutionary 
War.  The  agricultural  South  showed,  from  the  first 
discussions  of  the  subject  in  the  Continental  Congress, 
some  opposition  to  a  navy. 

Neither  the  navy  nor  a  naval  administration,  it 
should  be  remembered,  came  suddenly  into  existence. 
They  were  both  the  results  of  necessity.  The  very  cir- 
cumstances of  war  forced  men  to  consider  and  to  plan 
measures  of  protection  on  the  sea,  and  some  sort  of 
central  directive  organization.  Rhode  Island  was  the 
first  colony  to  commission  vessels  for  a  local  or  State 
navy.  It  should  also  be  credited  with  bringing  to  the 

1 1  Statutes  at  Large,  pp.  553  ff. 


200  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

attention  of  Congress  a  set  of  resolutions  which 
served,  after  a  hearing,  as  the  starting  point  in  the 
autumn  of  1775  for  a  central  administration  of  naval 
affairs.2 

The  naval  administration  of  the  Eevolutionary 
epoch  proved  in  fact  to  be  a  series  of  rather  crude 
experiments.  Above  the  details  of  administration, 
standing  out  as  the  more  or  less  responsible  centers  of 
control,  there  were  four  executive  organs.  With  refer- 
ence to  chronology  they  may  be  arranged  as  follows : 

1.  The  Naval  Committee :  October,  1775,  to  January,  1776. 

2.  The  Marine  Committee:  February,  1776,  to  December, 
1779. 

3.  The  Board  of  Admiralty:   December,    1779,   to  July, 
1781. 

4.  The  Agent  of  Marine:  September,  1781,  to  November, 
1784. 

The  changes  were  neither  quite  so  sudden  nor  so  defi- 
nite as  the  foregoing  divisions  and  dates  might  lead 
the  reader  to  believe.  By  a  process  of  merging  and 
absorption  the  so-called  Naval  Committee  lost  its 
identity  in  the  succeeding  Marine  Committee.  As 
time  elapsed — during  the  years,  1778-1779 — Congress 
hit  upon  the  idea  of  executive  boards,  relatively  small 
groups  containing  men  outside  Congress  as  well  as 
members  of  that  body.  Such  boards  were  utilized  in 
other  parts  of  the  continental  or  central  administra- 
tion, notably  in  connection  with  the  finances  and  the 

2  Journals  of  Congress,  October  3-December  22,  1775  (passim}.  John 
Adams's  Works,  I,  155,  187-188.  II,  462-463,  479-481,  485.  Ill,  6-12. 
IX,  464.  Cf.  C.  O.  Paullin,  The  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution:  its 
Administration,  its  Policy,  and  its  Achievements  (1906),  pp.  31  ff. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  NAVY         201 

practical  business  of  the  direction  of  the  war.  But 
nowhere  did  they  work  smoothly  or  effectively.  In 
1780  an  effort  to  place  the  various  administrative 
organizations  under  separate  heads  or  Secretaries  was, 
as  elsewhere  we  have  seen,  matured  and  approved  in 
Congress,  favored  by  such  leading  men  as  Hamilton, 
Jay,  Washington,  and  the  two  Morrises.  The  effort 
was  vigorously  opposed  by  Samuel  Adams  and  a 
respectable  following.  But  the  "constructive"  or 
"concentrative"  school,  as  it  has  been  variously 
termed,  finally  gained  the  day  in  the  spring  of  1781.3 
On  February  7, 1781,  Congress  adopted  a  plan  which 
provided  for  the  establishment  of  a  Secretary  of 
Marine,  and  prescribed  that  officer's  duties.  Two  days 
later,  February  9,  the  salary  of  the  Secretary  was 
fixed  at  five  thousand  dollars.  Near  the  end  of  the 
month,  on  February  27,  Congress  elected  Major- 
General  Alexander  McDougall  of  New  York  to  the  new 
position.  Months  before,  McDougall  had  been  thought 
of  as  a  fit  incumbent  for  the  place  by  Alexander  Ham- 
ilton. In  various  ways  well  qualified,  McDougall  made 
such  conditions  as  to  accepting  the  appointment  that 
Congress  felt  forced  finally  to  veto  it.  And  there  is  no 
evidence  that  any  other  choice  for  the  Secretaryship 
was  ever  again  seriously  considered.  Thus  the 
attempt  to  establish  and  fill  the  new  office  failed.  But 
it  could  hardly  have  been  forgotten.4 

3Paullin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  31  ff.,  48,  82,  86-87,  90,  181  ff.,  193,  208,  210  ff., 
226.  Guggenheimer  in  Jameson 's  Essays,  pp.  138  ff .,  160  ff.  The  term 
' ' concentrative "  is  Paullin's;  Francis  Wharton  uses  "constructive." 
Revolutionary  Diplomatic  Correspondence,  I,  Introd.,  p.  252. 

*  Journals  of  Congress  under  dates  indicated,  and  March  30,  1781. 


202  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

In  the  summer  of  1781  the  subject  of  naval  adminis- 
tration was  on  several  occasions  before  Congress. 
Three  committees  tried  at  different  times  to  solve  the 
administrative  problems  involved  in  the  naval  situa- 
tion. Late  in  August  the  third  committee  adopted  a 
makeshift  policy,  agreeing  "that  for  the  present  an 
agent  of  marine  be  appointed,  with  authority  to  direct, 
fit  out,  equip,  and  employ  the  ships  and  vessels  of  war 
belonging  to  the  United  States,  according  to  such 
instructions  as  he  shall,  from  time  to  time,  receive 
from  Congress.  "5  A  few  days  later,  on  September  7, 
Robert  Morris,  Superintendent  of  Finance,  was  asked 
by  Congress  to  assume  all  the  powers  and  duties  of  the 
office  "until  an  agent  of  marine  be  appointed  by  Con- 
gress. " 

Morris  accepted  the  office  on  the  following  day, 
holding  it  until  he  resigned  his  Superintendency  on 
November  1,  1784.  By  that  time  the  need  of  a  con- 
tinental navy  for  protection  had  passed.  Such  naval 
business  as  remained  related  chiefly  to  the  settlement 
of  naval  accounts;  and  it  was  placed  in  the  hands  of 
a  few  subordinates,  men  who  had  served  under  Morris, 
until  the  Board  of  Treasury,  organized  in  1785,  wound 
it  up.6 

That  for  more  than  three  years  Eobert  Morris  not 
only  managed  the  finances  of  the  Revolution,  but  also 

5  August  29. 

6  The  bare  details  are  easily  followed  in  the  Journals  of  Congress, 
VII-X.      Paullin   has   thrown   new   light   from   an   examination    of   the 
"Eecords   and   Papers   of   the   Continental   Congress"    in   Washington. 
See  his  chapter,  "The  Secretary  of  Marine  and  the  Agent  of  Marine," 
in  his  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution,  pp.  210-251. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  NAVY        203 

shouldered  the  burdens  of  naval  administration,  are 
facts  that  help  to  reveal  his  extraordinary  capacity. 
He  had  been  for  a  time  vice-president  of  the  old 
Marine  Committee.  And  during  the  trying  winter  of 
1776-1777,  while  Congress  was  at  Baltimore,  he 
remained  in  Philadelphia;  and  there,  with  very  little 
assistance,  he  administered  naval  affairs.7  After  Con- 
gress in  1781  had  failed  in  their  efforts  to  appoint 
McDougall  as  Secretary  of  Marine,  it  is  curious  to 
observe  the  way  that  naval  affairs  gravitated  to 
Morris.  No  better  characterization  of  this  phase  of 
his  career  has  ever  been  written  than  this  of  Dr.  Paul- 
lin.  "He  was  invited,"  says  Paullin,  "to  take  upon 
himself  more  or  less  of  the  naval  business  by  the 
urgent  need  of  sending  the  cruisers  on  important 
errands,  the  helplessness  of  the  Board  of  Admiralty, 
the  inertia  of  Congress. "  "The  figure, "  he  continues, 
' 1  that  Morris  presents  at  this  time  is  that  of  the  strong 
and  confident  man  of  affairs,  sagacious,  expeditious, 
and  painstaking,  who  is  surrounded  by  weaker  men, 
hesitating,  vacillating,  and  procrastinating  in  their 
administrative  attempts. '  '8  In  brief,  Morris  stands  as 
the  first  important  figure  in  the  national  administra- 
tion of  naval  affairs,  just  as  he  holds  a  similar  place  in 
the  history  of  American  financial  administration. 

II 

In  any  satisfactory  scheme  of  government — such, 
for  example,  as  men  were  groping  for  during  the 
years  of  the  Confederation  (1781-1788)— a  Secretary  of 

7  Paullin,  op.  cit.,  p.  90. 
*Il)id.,  pp.  219,  225-226. 


204  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Marine  was  not  usually  overlooked.  It  was  assumed 
that  any  robust  and  vigorous  government  must  sustain 
a  navy  and  provide  for  its  effective  administration. 
Yet  to  most  men  of  that  time  it  is  probable  that  the 
conclusion  of  the  Eevolutionary  War  signified  the  dis- 
appearance of  the  need  for  a  navy.  Other  matters 
seemed  to  be  of  relatively  greater  moment.  The 
common  view  was  sufficiently  well  expressed  by  John 
Adams.  In  a  letter  written  to  Thomas  Jefferson  at 
Paris,  Adams  remarked  that  a  "disposition  seems 
rather  to  prevail  among  our  citizens  to  give  up  all 
ideas  of  navigation  and  naval  power,  and  lay  them- 
selves consequently  at  the  mercy  of  foreigners. '  *  The 
sentiment  should  not,  however,  disguise  the  fact  that 
commerce  at  this  time  was  already  reviving  and  reach- 
ing out  to  some  extent  in  the  direction  of  Oriental 
ports.  This  commercial  interest,  characteristic  of 
peaceful  conditions,  was  bound  to  foster  any  incipient 
movement,  such  as  can  be  found,  toward  a  naval  estab- 
lishment. 

For  years  a  navy  had  been  one  of  John  Adams's 
cherished  projects.  In  the  opening  years  of  the  Revo- 
lution he  had  labored  for  some  efficient  form  of  naval 
administration;  and  he  was  the  chief  author  of  the 
rules  for  the  government  of  the  American  navy,  and 
articles  to  be  signed  by  the  officers  and  men  employed 
in  that  service,  a  code  re-adopted  much  later,  as  we 
shall  see,  under  the  Constitution.10  While  residing  in 

9  Adams's  Worlcs,  VIII,  412.    Letter  dated  at  London,  July  31,  1786. 

10  Journals  of  Congress,  November  23,  25,  28,  1775,  etc.     Paullin,  op. 
cit.,  pp.  43  ff.    Proceedings  of  the  U.  S.  Naval  Institute,  XXXII,  1009. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  NAVY        205 


London,  in  letters  written  during  1785-1786,  Adams 
occasionally  touched  upon  the  subject  of  an  American 
navy.  He  wrote  to  Jefferson,  saying :  ' '  I  wish  I  could 
know  the  number  of  foreign  ships  which  have  entered 

the  ports  of  the  United  States  since  the  peace If 

all  these  ships  and  seamen  were  American,  what 
materials  would  they  furnish  for  a  navy  in  a  very  few 
years,  not  more  than  eight  or  ten."u  About  a  year 
later,  on  July  3,  1786,  he  expressed  to  Jefferson  his 
conviction  that  a  war  with  the  Barbary  States,  which 
then  seemed  not  impossible,  might  prove  to  be  "a 
good  occasion  to  begin  a  navy. ' m  He  was  willing  to  go 
almost  any  length,  as  he  admitted,  in  urging  on  the 
government  of  the  United  States  a  naval  establish- 
ment. Moreover,  Jefferson  himself  was  at  the  time 
distinctly  in  favor  of  war  and  against  further  payment 
of  tribute  to  the  Barbary  powers,  and  hence  quite  as 
strong  a  believer  as  Adams  in  an  American  navy.  He 
too  considered  a  marine  force  a  necessity,  and 
remarked  that  it  could  "  never  endanger  our  liber- 
ties." It  seems  highly  probable  that,  had  either 
Adams  or  Jefferson  been  members  of  the  first  Con- 
gress in  1789,  when  that  body  was  debating  the  whole 
problem  of  the  organization  of  departments,  they 
would  both  have  urged  the  creation  of  a  separate 
department  of  the  navy. 

11  August  8,  1785.     Works,  VIII,  296. 

12/fcuf.,  p.  407. 

"August  11,  1786.  Letter  to  Monroe.  Jefferson's  Writings  (ed. 
Washington),  I,  606.  Dr.  G.  W.  Allen  has  discussed  carefully  the  two 
views  of  Adams  and  Jefferson  in  Our  Navy  and  the  Barbary  Corsairs 
(1905),  pp.  35  ff. 


206  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

In  1786  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation,  stirred 
by  the  news  of  the  depredations  of  the  Mediterranean 
corsairs  on  American  shipping,  went  on  record  to  the 
effect  that  "it  is  proper  and  expedient  for  the  federal 
government  to  turn  their  earliest  attention  to  the 
Marine  Department,  and  that  a  committee  be 
appointed  to  frame  and  report  an  ordinance  for  organ- 
izing the  same."14  The  next  year,  late  in  the  session 
of  the  Philadelphia  Convention,  Gouverneur  Morris 
declared  that  a  "navy  was  essential  to  security,  par- 
ticularly of  the  Southern  States."15  But,  notwith- 
standing such  suggestions,  there  was  to  be  no  separate 
naval  establishment  for  the  present,  for  Congress 
determined  in  1789  to  place  such  naval  business  as 
there  might  be  directly  in  charge  of  the  Secretary  of 
War. 

The  first  section  of  the  statute  creating  the  Depart- 
ment of  War  referred  to  naval  matters  as  clearly  of 
minor  importance.16  But  naval  business  could  not  long 
remain  so.  For,  in  the  first  place,  the  Constitution  had 
given  Congress  certain  powers  with  reference  to  main- 
taining a  navy.  The  President,  moreover,  was  com- 
mander-in-chief  of  the  navy.  And  since  no  State  could 

i*  Quoted  by  Paullin  from  "Becords  and  Papers  of  the  Continental 
Congress, ' '  No.  25,  vol.  II,  459,  in  Proceedings  of  the  U.  S.  Naval  Insti- 
tute, XXXII,  1002. 

is  Elliot,  Delates,  V,  490.    August  29. 

16  1  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  50.  " .  .  .  .  the  Secretary  for  the  Depart- 
ment of  War,  who  shall  perform  and  execute  such  duties  as  shall  from 
time  to  time  be  enjoined  on  or  entrusted  to  him  by  the  President  .... 
agreeably  to  the  Constitution,  relative  to  military  commissions,  or  to 
land  or  naval  forces,  ships,  or  warlike  stores  ....  or  to  such  other 
matters  respecting  military  or  naval  affairs."  Not  another  reference 
to  a  navy  occurs  in  the  law. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  NAVY        207 

own  ships  of  war  in  times  of  peace,  circumstances  were 
sure  in  future  to  force  some  of  these  constitutional 
powers  into  active  employment. 

In  1790  the  Secretary  of  War,  General  Knox,  was 
considering  the  possibility  of  getting  together  some 
armed  vessels  of  war  for  the  uses  of  the  government. 
Early  in  January,  1791,  the  Senate,  enlightened  by 
Jefferson,  Secretary  of  State,  as  to  the  conditions  of 
Mediterranean  trade,  resolved  "that  the  trade  of  the 
United  States  to  the  Mediterranean  cannot  be  pro- 
tected but  by  a  naval  force ;  and  that  it  will  be  proper 
to  resort  to  the  same  as  soon  as  the  state  of  the  public 
finances  will  admit.  "17  Nothing  came  of  this  sugges- 
tion. But  it  reveals  clearly  enough  that  circum- 
stances beyond  American  control  were  already  arous- 
ing and  helping  to  shape  public  interest  in  a  navy. 
These  circumstances  were  to  enforce  vigorous  action 
on  the  part  of  the  national  government,  as  we  shall 
presently  see,  in  1794. 

Ill 

From  the  year  1794  we  may  reckon  what  Knox 
termed  the  "second  commencement  of  a  navy  for  the 
United  States.  "18  By  a  law  of  March  27,  1794,  Con- 
gress provided  for  the  building  of  six  government 
vessels,  a  fleet  sufficiently  large,  it  was  thought,  for 
"the  protection  of  the  commerce  of  the  United  States 
against  the  Algerine  corsairs."  By  a  special  provision 

17  American  State  Papers,  Foreign  Relations,  I,  108. 

18  December   27,   1794.     Eeport  to  the  House  of  Representatives   in 
American  State  Papers,  Naval  Affairs,  I,  6. 


208  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

it  was  determined  that  "in  case  of  peace  with  Algiers 
all  work  on  the  frigates  should  stop."  Peace  with 
Algiers  came  the  next  year  (1795),  but  was  not  for- 
mally ratified  by  the  Senate  until  March  2,  1796.  The 
work  of  building  the  frigates  had  by  that  date  reached 
such  a  stage  of  advancement  that  President  Wash- 
ington soon  requested  Congress  to  consider  the  prob- 
lem of  loss  to  the  government  in  case  work  were 
summarily  suspended.  In  response  to  this  suggestion 
Congress  decided,  by  an  act  of  April  20,  that  the  Presi- 
dent should  "cause  to  be  completed,  with  all  con- 
venient expedition,"  three  frigates.  These  ships, 
"launched  the  following  year,  were  the  United  States, 
Constitution,  and  Constellation.  They  were  the  first 
of  a  long  and  honorable  list."19  The  United  States, 
built  at  Philadelphia,  was  launched  on  May  10,  1797 ; 
the  Constitution,  built  at  Boston,  was  launched  Octo- 
ber 21  following;  and  the  Constellation,  built  at  Balti- 
more, was  launched  on  September  7.  Pickering  and 
Washington  together  helped  to  name  the  frigates.20 

There  was  opposition  to  the  enactment  of  March, 
1794.  As  the  opposition  to  a  navy  in  the  Eevolution 
came  at  the  outset  chiefly  from  the  South,  so  now, 
long  after  the  navy  of  the  Eevolution  had  disappeared, 
there  came  similar  opposition  from  the  same  region. 
Although  the  enactment  was  directed  to  a  specific 
object,  it  was  generally  regarded  as  likely  to  lead  to 

w  G.  W.  Allen,  Our  Navy  and  the  Barbary  Corsairs,  p.  58.  The  whole 
subject  is  admirably  treated  in  this  author's  fourth  chapter,  " Peace 
with  Algiers,"  pp.  43-58. 

20  C.  O.  Paullin,  in  Proceedings  of  the  U.  S.  Naval  Institute,  XXXII, 
1008-1009. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  NAVY        209 

a  permanent  naval  establishment.  Madison  saw  in  a 
navy  grave  danger  of  international  complications. 
Others  opposed  a  navy  on  financial  grounds:  the 
country  was  poor ;  let  the  public  debt  be  first  of  all  dis- 
charged. It  would  be  better,  it  was  suggested,  to  buy 
peace  of  the  Algerines,  as  European  states  had  done 
for  many  years.  A  few  considered  the  navy  as  a  real 
menace  to  liberty.  But  the  more  liberal  majority — 
among  whom  should  be  reckoned  William  Smith  of 
South  Carolina — passed  the  law.  Belying  on  the  prob- 
able improvement  of  the  nation's  credit,  sure  of  the 
need  of  organized  protection  to  American  commerce 
on  the  high  seas,  inasmuch  as  trade  was  rapidly 
increasing,  this  majority  forced  through  Congress  a 
measure  that  was  to  prove  on  the  whole  beneficent  and 
necessary.21 

In  Washington's  last  annual  message  there  was  a 
memorable  passage  in  this  connection,  in  which  the 
President  dwelt  on  the  desirability  of  building  up  a 
navy.  "To  an  active  external  commerce,"  he  wrote, 
"the  protection  of  a  naval  force  is  indispensable  .... 
it  is  in  our  own  experience  that  the  most  sincere  neu- 
trality is  not  a  sufficient  guard  against  the  depreda- 
tions of  nations  at  war.  To  secure  respect  to  a  neutral 
flag  requires  a  naval  force  organized  and  ready  to  vin- 
dicate it  from  insult  or  aggression.  This  may  even 
prevent  the  necessity  of  going  to  war  by  discouraging 
belligerent  powers  from  committing  such  violations  of 
the  rights  of  the  neutral  flag  as  may  ....  leave  no  other 
option These  considerations,"  he  concluded, 

21  Based  upon  Paullin  and  Allen. 


210  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

"invite  the  United  States  to  look  to  the  means,  and 
to  set  about  the  gradual  creation  of  a  navy  ....  so 
that  a  future  war  of  Europe  may  not  find  our  com- 
merce in  the  same  unprotected  state  in  which  it  was 
found  by  the  present/'22 

With  numerous  circumstances  all  tending  to  empha- 
size the  great  utility  of  a  national  navy,  with  the 
counsel  of  eminent  statesmen  advocating  conservative 
but  definite  action  looking  toward  the  creation  of  a 
navy,  together  with  the  fact  that  there  was  already  a 
small  nucleus  of  national  ships  about  ready  to  be 
launched,  John  Adams's  administration  opened  in 
March,  1797. 

IV 

From  1794,  when  navy  business  first  assumed  vital 
importance,  to  May,  1798,  three  Secretaries  of  War 
endeavored  successively  to  manage  that  business  in 
consultation  with  Presidents  Washington  and  Adams. 
The  truth  has  been  very  succinctly  expressed  in  this 
way:  "Knox  superintended  the  navy  for  a  little  less 
than  a  year;  Pickering  for  a  little  more  than  a  year; 
and  McHenry  for  a  little  more  than  two  years."23  Let 
us  observe  a  few  of  the  facts  in  the  situation. 

The  initial  difficulties  of  the  tasks  of  naval  organi- 
zation were  shouldered  by  Knox.  It  was  Knox  who 
planned  the  work  of  constructing  six  ships,  of  procur- 
ing materials  and  of  selecting  officers,  naval  agents, 
and  skilled  constructors.  As  early  as  June,  1794, 

22  Messages  and  Papers,  I,  201. 

23  Paullin  in  Proceedings  of  the  U.  S.  Naval  Institute,  XXXII,  1005. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  NAVY        211 

Washington  appointed  six  captains  in  the  navy,  among 
these  being  John  Barry,  Samuel  Nicholson,  Richard 
Dale  and  Thomas  Truxton.  These  six  officers  were 
each  to  superintend  the  construction  of  a  vessel, 
although  Joshua  Humphreys,  a  shipbuilder  of  Phila- 
delphia, was  the  designer  of  all  the  frigates.24  For  the 
sake  of  distributing  benefits  among  different  localities, 
the  six  vessels  were  to  be  built  at  as  many  different 
ports.  In  each  shipyard  such  officials  as  were  needed 
were  provided.  Thus  a  business  organization  was 
developed  quickly  near  the  start. 

Pickering  for  a  brief  period  carried  on  the  work  that 
his  predecessor  had  laid  out.  The  keels  of  six  vessels 
were  completed  and  laid  upon  the  blocks.  Five  of  the 
six  vessels  were  named.  The  work  went  on  under 
McHenry.  But  the  strained  relations  between  the 
United  States  and  France — the  actual  imminency  of 
war  early  in  1798 — forced  upon  McHenry  a  grave 
responsibility  such  as  neither  Knox  nor  Pickering  had 
known.25 

In  his  first  message  addressed  to  the  special  session 
of  Congress — a  message  dated  May  16,  1797— Presi- 
dent Adams,  calling  attention  to  the  growing  interest 
in  commerce,  spoke  urgently  of  the  need  of  establish- 
ing a  permanent  system  of  naval  defence.26  The  senti- 
ments of  Adams  were  in  accord  with  Washington's 
well-known  views,  and  likewise  with  those  of  many  less 

24  A  good  sketch  of  Humphreys  is  given  by  G.  W.  Allen,  Our  Naval 
War  with  France  (1909),  pp.  42  ff. 

25  For  this  and  the  preceding  paragraph  I  have  depended  much  on 
Paullin's  article  already  cited,  pp.  1005-1010. 

26  Messages  and  Papers,  I,  236-237. 


212  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

distinguished  members  of  the  Federalist  party.  They 
were  expressed  only  six  days  after  the  frigate  United 
States  was  launched  at  Philadelphia,  but  before  any 
one  of  the  three  vessels  was  equipped  for  service.  On 
July  1  following,  Congress  was  moved  to  authorize 
the  President  to  man  and  employ  these  vessels,  and 
thus — as  Dr.  Paullin  observes — really  committed  the 
country  to  a  naval  establishment.  In  accordance  with 
this  July  law,  the  navy  was  to  be  governed  by  the  rules 
and  regulations  of  the  old  Eevolutionary  navy,  the 
code  which  John  Adams  had  conceived  nearly  twenty- 
two  years  before.27 

On  November  22  Adams  once  more  urged  on  Con- 
gress the  need  of  protecting  American  commerce  and 
of  looking  after  the  interests  of  seafaring  citizens  as 
well  as  those  of  others.  In  the  following  March, 
moved  by  the  increasing  danger  of  war  with  France  as 
well  as  perhaps  by  the  President's  words,  Congress 
prepared  to  act.  On  March  8,  1798,  a  committee  of 
the  House  of  Representatives  reported  in  favor  of  a 
commissioner  of  marine  in  the  War  Department  "who 
should  be  employed  in  the  immediate  superintendence 
of  the  naval  concerns  of  the  United  States. "  A  fort- 
night later,  on  March  22,  McHenry  proposed  separat- 
ing the  naval  business  from  that  of  the  War  Depart- 
ment.28 

Results  were  sure  to  follow.  On  Monday,  April  2, 
Senator  William  Bingham  of  Pennsylvania  made  a 

27  Paullin 's  article,  p.  1009. 

28  Messages  and  Papers,  I,  251,  256.    Annals  of  Congress  under  March 
8.    B.  C.  Steiner,  Life  and  Correspondence  of  James  McHenry,  p.  302. 
American  State  Papers,  Naval  Affairs,  I,  33-34,  39. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  NAVY         213 

motion  favoring  the  appointment  of  a  committee  "to 
take  into  consideration  the  propriety  of  instituting  a 
separate  executive  department,  for  the  purpose  of 
superintending  and  regulating  the  various  objects 
connected  with  the  Naval  Establishment  of  the  United 
States. '  '29  In  accordance  with  this  motion  a  committee 
of  three  was  appointed  the  next  day.  This  committee 
reported  a  bill  to  the  Senate  on  April  11.  The  bill 
passed  that  body,  apparently  without  much  opposition, 
on  April  16.  The  report  of  the  Senate  debate  is  very 
meagre.  But  we  know  that  two  Senators,  Marshall  of 
Kentucky  and  Paine  of  Vermont,  each  from  an  inland 
state,  tried  to  limit  the  proposed  measure  in  time,  so 
that  a  navy  department  should  serve  only  as  a  tem- 
porary expedient.30 

The  real  ordeal  came  on  April  25,  in  the  debate  in 
the  House  of  Representatives  on  the  question  of  allow- 
ing the  bill  to  pass  to  its  third  reading.  By  a  close 
vote — forty-seven  to  forty-one31 — the  bill  went  to  its 
final  reading,  then  was  passed  by  the  House — forty- 
two  to  twenty-seven — and  was  approved  and  signed 
by  President  Adams  on  April  30. 

The  opposition  in  the  House  was  vigorous.  It  lay  to 
some  extent  along  party  lines,  for  the  measure  was 
regarded  as  distinctly  Federalist.  But  it  was  gov- 
erned also  by  economic  considerations.  In  general  the 
agricultural  states  opposed  it,  and  the  commercial 
states — chiefly  north  of  the  Potomac  River — favored 

29  Annals  of  Congress,  5  Cong.,  2  sess.   (1797-1799),  I,  534. 

30/Znd.,  I,  539-542. 

31  See  Table  at  the  end  of  this  chapter. 


214  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

it.  It  may  be  noted,  however,  that  a  majority  of  the 
Eepresentatives  from  both  New  York  and  Pennsyl- 
vania were  recorded  against  it,  while  the  six  Repre- 
sentatives from  South  Carolina  were  equally  divided. 
Some  of  those  who  opposed  the  measure  argued  that 
a  separate  navy  department  was  under  the  circum- 
stances unnecessary.  Gallatin  took  this  view.  He 
believed  that  it  might  be  wise  to  increase  the  personnel 
of  the  War  Department  if  the  business  of  naval  admin- 
istration demanded  additional  effort.  From  his 
standpoint,  to  organize  a  separate  department  was  not 
only  unnecessary  but  uneconomical.  The  new  depart- 
ment would,  he  believed,  increase  expenses  out  of  all 
proportion  to  its  utility.  To  the  suggestion  made 
several  times  in  the  course  of  the  debate  that  the  Sec- 
retary of  War  had  already  too  many  burdens,  and  that 
a  naval  organization  really  demanded  expert  knowl- 
edge on  the  part  of  a  Secretary,  it  was  answered  that 
it  might  prove  expedient  to  appoint  a  War  Secretary 
capable  of  understanding  both  army  and  navy  admin- 
istration. There  was  doubtless  some  reflection  here 
on  McHenry,  who  was  not  a  man  of  large  ability.  But 
in  any  event  the  difficulties  of  securing  such  double 
qualifications  in  one  man  were  obvious. 

In  the  course  of  his  remarks  in  opposition  to  a  techni- 
cal expert  on  ships  as  well  fitted  for  the  new  place, 
Edward  Livingston  of  New  York  was  reported  as 
saying  that  "if  a  shipbuilder  was  to  have  the  appoint- 
ment, he  could  not  think  such  a  person  fit  to  be  one  of 
the  great  council  of  the  nation;  and  it  must  be  recol- 
lected, "  he  added  significantly,  "that  the  person  who 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  NAVY         215 

holds  this  office  will  become  one  of  the  counsellors  of 
the  President  on  all  great  concerns/'  Quite  unwit- 
tingly Livingston  here  made  the  first  clear  reference 
to  the  President's  Cabinet — reckoning  from  1789 — 
that  I  have  found  in  the  records  of  the  debates  of  either 
the  Senate  or  the  House  of  Eepresentatives. 

The  circumstances  of  the  political  situation  favored 
the  quick  passage  of  the  bill.  There  was  already  a 
nucleus,  sure  to  grow,  of  a  national  navy.  Moreover, 
the  practices  of  the  Revolution,  with  which  men  were 
in  1798  perfectly  familiar,  had  set  an  earlier  standard 
for  a  naval  administration  separate  from  that  of  war. 
President  Adams  was  deeply  interested  in  having  a 
national  naval  organization.  Most  European  coun- 
tries had  such  separate  administrative  organizations. 
Harrison  Grey  Otis,  speaking  on  behalf  of  a  separate 
naval  Secretary,  remarked  that  "it  was  necessary, 
even  for  the  sake  of  appearances,  to  establish  an  office 
of  this  kind  ....  we  ought  to  do  it  in  conformity  to  the 
opinion  of  the  European  world.  He  thought  $5,000  a 
year  would  be  well  expended  in  purchasing  the  good 
opinion  of  the  European  nations  in  this  respect,  and 
particularly  that  of  France. "  Such  language  was 
likely  to  arouse  hostile  comment,  as  it  did.  When  the 
same  speaker  reminded  his  colleagues  from  the  agri- 
cultural states  that  a  thriving,  well-protected  commerce 
meant  certain  gains  to  agriculture,  he  adduced  a  truth 
that  could  be  neither  overlooked  nor  denied.33 

32  Annals  of   Congress,  op.   cit.,  II,   1552.     April  25,   1798.     Supra, 
chapter  VI,  p.  138. 

33  The  account  rests  on  the  reports  of  the  debate  in  the  Annals  of 
Congress,  5  Cong.   (1797-1799),  I,  534-541.     II,  1426,  1522,  1545-1554, 


216  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

On  the  first  of  May,  John  Adams  sent  to  the  Senate 
the  name  of  George  Cabot  of  Massachusetts  to  be  Sec- 
retary of  the  Navy.  The  nomination  was  ratified  on 
May  3,  and  a  commission  was  issued  on  that  day. 
Pickering  notified  Cabot  of  his  appointment  two  days 
later,  and  at  the  same  time  sent  him  a  personal  letter 
to  urge  his  acceptance.  "In  this  new  office, "  wrote 
Pickering,  "the  President  wishes  to  find  not  only  a 
person  of  practical  knowledge  in  maritime  affairs,  but 

a  statesman The  public  advantages  to  be  derived 

from  your  conducting  the  department  you  can  fully 
estimate,  and  your  friends  have  anticipated.  Although 
the  formation  of  a  navy  has  been  contemplated  these 
four  years,  it  is  at  the  present  moment  only  that  the 
establishment  may  be  considered  as  commencing. ' >34 

Cabot  declined  the  appointment  on  May  11,  probably 
from  an  honest  belief  in  his  own  unfitness.  He  was  a 
staunch  Federalist- — a  man  of  ability  according  to 
contemporary  judgment,  and  in  touch  and  sympathy 
with  such  men  as  Pickering  and  Wolcott,  members  of 
the  Cabinet.  But  he  was  naturally  indolent,  according 
to  the  view  of  his  own  great-grandson  and  biographer, 
and  disliked  publicity.35  The  place  certainly  called  for 
a  man  of  force  and  thorough  industry.  Adams  was 
fortunate  in  finding  just  such  a  one  in  Benjamin 
Stoddert  of  Maryland.  Nominated  to  the  office  on  May 

supplemented  by  some  suggestions  taken  from  Paullin's  article  entitled 
"Early  Naval  Administration  under  the  Constitution "  and  hitherto 
cited. 

34  H.  C.  Lodge,  Life  and  Letters  of  George  Cabot   (2d  ed.,  Boston: 
1878),  pp.  155  ff. 

35  Ibid. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  NAVY         217 

18,  Stoddert  was  confirmed  by  the  Senate  and  commis- 
sioned on  May  21.  But  he  did  not  undertake  the  active 
duties  of  the  position  until  the  eighteenth  of  June.36 

V 

The  Secretary  of  the  Navy  was  the  first  official  since 
1789  who  became  a  member  of  the  President's  Cabinet. 
In  the  debates  in  Congress  over  the  establishment  of 
the  new  executive  department  it  was  assumed,  as  we 
have  seen,  that  the  official  at  its  head  would  become  a 
counsellor.  And  in  practice  President  Adams  made 
him  one,  setting  an  example  in  1798  which  has  been  fol- 
lowed ever  since.  Benjamin  Stoddert  was  the  first 
principal  officer  of  Adams 's  own  selection  who  entered 
the  Cabinet.  All  the  others — excepting  John  Marshall 
and  Samuel  Dexter  who  were  chosen  later  and  served 
in  the  Cabinet  for  comparatively  brief  periods — were 
a  heritage  from  Washington's  Presidency.  Stoddert 
was  not  only  a  capable  and  far-sighted  administrator 
—the  true  founder  of  the  office ;  but  in  the  days  follow- 
ing, when  Adams  was  exasperated  by  intrigues  among 
his  confidential  assistants,  Stoddert  seems  to  have 
remained  faithful  to  his  chief.  It  was  especially 
important  at  the  time  that  the  President  should  have 
an  intimate  and  expert  assistant  on  whom,  in  naval 
matters,  he  might  depend,  for — as  Dr.  Gardner  W. 
Allen  has  recently  pointed  out — hostilities  between  the 
United  States  and  France  continued  to  be  acute  for 
almost  three  years,  and  amounted  to  actual  war, 
although  war  was  declared  on  neither  side.37 

^Mosher,  Executive  Register,  p.  59. 

37  Our  Naval  War  with  France,  Preface,  p.  vii. 


218  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

There  is  one  aspect  of  the  establishment  of  the  Sec- 
retaryship that  should  not  be  overlooked.  The  office 
developed  naturally  out  of  the  necessity  of  differentiat- 
ing the  administrative  tasks  which  were  burdening  the 
War  Department.  There  was  no  popular  demand  for 
it.  It  had  to  be  forced  into  being — extracted  from  a 
Congress  that  contained  both  hostile  and  inert  elements 
— by  a  few  leaders  who  appreciated  the  more  imme- 
diate needs  of  the  government,  and  saw  in  the  future 
the  possibilities  of  a  disastrous  war  as  affecting  a 
steadily  increasing  commerce.  The  larger  aspects  of 
the  problem  were  set  forth — as  they  should  have  been 
— by  both  Washington  and  John  Adams.  These  men, 
with  the  aid  of  their  administrative  assistants  and 
certain  enlightened  members  of  Congress,  after  some 
years  of  effort,  brought  about  the  act  of  1798. 

The  Cabinet  Council  thus  became  a  body  composed  of 
five  regular  members.  It  will  be  the  aim  of  the  next 
chapter  to  account  for  the  addition  to  the  Cabinet  of 
a  sixth  member — the  Postmaster-General. 


NOTE 

Table  showing  the  votes  on  the  question  of  allowing 
the  bill  for  the  establishment  of  a  separate  Navy 
Department  to  go  to  its  third  reading  in  the  House  of 
Kepresentatives  on  April  25, 1798 : 

VOTES  VOTES 

FOR  AGAINST 

Vermont    .......         1  1 

New  Hampshire 3  0 

Massachusetts 10  2 

Rhode  Island 2  0 

Connecticut 6  0 

New  York 4  5 

New  Jersey 4  0 

Pennsylvania 2  4 

Delaware        1  0 

Maryland 6  1 

Virginia 4  12 

North  Carolina 1  8 

Soiith  Carolina 3  3 

Georgia 0  2 

Tennessee 0  1 

Kentucky 0  2 

Total  votes  .                                   47  41 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  POSTMASTEE-GENEEAL 

It  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  that  Jackson 
was  the  first  President  to  reckon  the  Postmaster- 
General  a  regular  member  of  the  Cabinet.  In  the  latter 
part  of  the  summer  of  1828,  about  six  months  before 
Jackson 's  inauguration,  Edward  Everett — at  the  time 
a  Eepresentative  in  Congress  from  Massachusetts— 
in  a  letter  written  to  Postmaster-General  John  McLean, 
remarked  that  the  "Postmaster-Genl.  is  not,  by 
usage,  a  member  of  the  Cabinet  Council;  but,  as  you 
justly  observe,  his  functions  are  as  delicate  and  impor- 
tant as  those  of  any  officer. "  In  the  opinion  of  both 
Everett  and  McLean,  the  Postmaster-General  was  in 
control  of  the  greatest  amount  of  patronage — greater 
by  far  than  that  of  any  other  officer.  Looking  back 
over  five  years  of  service  to  1823,  the  year  of  his 
appointment,  McLean  was  inclined  to  believe  that  at 
that  time  the  position  of  Postmaster-General  was 
"the  least  desirable  office  in  the  country. M1  It  had 
certainly  increased  in  importance  under  McLean's 
able  management.  But  in  order  to  explain  the  rise  of 
the  office  to  cabinet  rank,  it  will  be  necessary  briefly 
to  consider  some  phases  of  its  history. 

I 

Crude  postal  arrangements  for  the  benefit  of  the 
King  and  his  Court  existed  in  England  from  the  early 

1  Correspondence  between  Edward  Everett  and  John  McLean  in 
Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Proceedings,  3d  ser.,  I,  361,  367. 


THE  POSTMASTER-GENERAL  221 

part  of  the  sixteenth  century.  These  were  under  the 
direction  of  an  official  known  as  Master  of  the  Posts. 
In  the  seventeenth  century  the  postal  service  was 
organized  for  the  convenience  of  the  more  general 
public.  It  was  administered  by  one  or  more  persons 
—a  Postmaster-General  and  his  deputies — who  acted 
under  the  supervision  of  one  of  the  Secretaries  of 
State.  In  1710  an  act  of  Queen  Anne2  introduced 
uniformity  and  consistency  into  an  administration 
that  had  been  hitherto  crude  and  poorly  arranged. 
The  act  was  clearly  designed  to  bring  the  distant  parts 
of  the  realm  and  the  colonies  into  closer  touch 
with  the  central  governmental  organization  in  London. 
From  1710  to  1823  there  were  as  a  rule  two  English 
Postmasters-General.3 

In  colonial  America  there  is  very  slight  evidence  of 
post  roads  and  offices  until  the  second  half  of  the  seven- 
teenth century.  It  is  true  that  Massachusetts  as  early 
as  1639  and  New  Netherlands  in  1657  made  certain 
regulations  for  the  purpose  of  securing  the  proper 
and  safe  transmission  and  delivery  of  letters  ' '  coming 
from  beyond  the  Seas,  or  ....  sent  thither. "  More- 
over, we  are  safe  in  surmising  that  such  offshoots 
from  the  parent  colony  as  the  settlements  on  the  Con- 
necticut River,  and  Rhode  Island  and  Providence 
Plantations  were  a  probable  means  of  enforcing  the 
need  of  occasional  communication,  and  so  tended  to 
encourage  the  establishment  of  at  least  a  rough  system 
of  roads.  About  1672  efforts  were  made  to  arrange 

29  Anne,  c.  10  in  Statutes  at  Large  (London:  1763),  IV,  434-445. 
SAnson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  Pt.  II,  pp.  182-183. 


222  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

postal  communication  between  Boston  and  New  York. 
Although  not  at  first  successful,  these  efforts  probably 
mark  the  time  for  the  real  beginnings  of  domestic 
postal  service  in  the  colonies.  Other  colonies  followed 
the  examples  of  New  York  and  Massachusetts,  or  were 
induced  by  their  own  particular  needs  to  organize 
some  sort  of  system  for  transmitting  letters  from 
place  to  place,  so  that  by  1689  at  latest  the  subject  of 
postal  service  had  been  widely  discussed.  Here  and 
there  actual  plans  were  being  carried  out  with  some 
degree  of  success.  Attempts  on  the  part  of  the  home 
government  after  1660  to  consolidate  the  colonies 
certainly  had  a  tendency  to  foster  a  general  plan  for 
post  roads  and  offices  which  should  include  most  of  the 
colonies  within  its  range.  Moreover,  such  men  as 
Governor  Dongan  of  New  York,  Sir  Edmund  Andros, 
Lord  Cornbury,  and  William  Penn  all  showed  an 
active  interest  in  making  the  movement  effective.* 

Early  in  the  last  decade  of  the  century  a  certain 
Thomas  Neale,  Master  of  the  English  Mint  from  1679 
to  1699,  obtained  a  patent  from  William  and  Mary 
which  granted  to  him  or  to  his  executors  and  assignees 
for  a  period  of  twenty-one  years  the  right  to  establish 
a  post — 

for  the  conveying  of  Letters  within  or  between  Virginia 
Maryland  Delaware  New  Yorke  New  England  East  and  "West 
Jersey  Pensilvania  and  Northward  as  far  as  our  Dominions 
reach  in  America. 


33   (Providence,  E.  I.:   1894),  in  No.  II  of  Papers  from  the  Historical 
Seminary  of  Brown  University  (ed.  J.  F.  Jameson). 


THE  POSTMASTER-GENERAL  223 

Neale  and  his  successors  were  likewise  privileged  to 
nominate  fit  officers  in  the  colonies  to  carry  out  the 
details  of  organization  —  the  arrangement  of  offices, 
roads,  postal  rates,  and  other  matters  essential  to  the 
efficacy  of  the  plan.  The  patent  was  dated  at  West- 
minster February  17,  169^.  We  are  fortunate  in 
having  an  exact  copy  of  it  easily  accessible  and  in 
print.5  It  was  the  means  of  instituting  the  first  royal 
intercolonial  post  in  the  American  colonies.  In  April, 
1692,  Neale  nominated,  and  the  English  Postmasters- 
General  appointed,  Andrew  Hamilton  as  manager  of 
the  general  Post-Office  in  America,  thus  arranging  for 
an  officer  who  served  as  deputy  Postmaster-General. 
Many  of  the  colonies  —  notably  New  York  and  New 
Jersey  (of  which  latter  colony  Hamilton  became 
governor)  —  did  their  best  to  aid  the  measure.  And 
although  the  organization  limped  along  for  some 
years,  involving  Neale  in  debt,  it  seems  probable  that 
it  was  useful  to  the  colonies,  and  that  it  had  attained 
some  degree  of  success  by  the  time  that  the  act  of 
Anne,  already  referred  to,  went  into  effect. 

Thomas  Neale  was  a  character  of  no 
nence  in  England.  He  seems  for  many  years  to  have 
been  a  favorite  at  Court.  As  early  as  June  20,  1664, 
he  was  noticed  in  Pepys's  Diary.  Thirty  years  later 
he  fell  under  the  observant  eye  of  John  Evelyn  who 
had  something  to  say  about  his  business  ventures  and 
money-making  schemes.  He  probably  belonged  to  the 
class  of  confirmed  officer-holders,  and  was  a  "deter- 


pp.   27-33.     Here  first  printed  by   Professor  Jameson   who 
obtained  an  exact  copy  from  the  Public  Eecord  Office  in  London  in  1894. 


224  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

mined  and  adventurous  speculator,  quick  to  seize  any 
opportunity  for  personal  profit.  "6  He  died  about  the 
close  of  the  century,  perhaps  in  1699.  There  is  not  as 
yet  the  slightest  evidence  to  indicate  that  he  ever 
came  to  America.  But  his  patent  and  the  resulting 
postal  organization  form  an  interesting  commentary 
on  his  life,  and  certainly  marked  an  epoch  in  the  his- 
tory of  an  American  institution. 

Neale's  experiment  did  not  prove  remunerative  to 
him.  In  fact,  after  a  few  years  he  found  himself  with- 
out resources,  and  shortly  before  his  death,  deeply  in 
debt,  he  assigned  his  interest  in  the  colonial  organiza- 
tion to  Hamilton  and  an  Englishman  by  the  name  of 
West,  to  both  of  whom  he  was  owing  money.  In  the 
spring  of  1703  Andrew  Hamilton  died,  and  for  three 
or  four  years  his  widow  and  West  together  seem  to 
have  managed  the  posts.  By  1706  Mrs.  Hamilton  and 
West  urged  that  the  patent,  which  still  had  seven  and 
a  half  years  to  run,  might  be  extended  for  another 
term  of  twenty-one  years.  But  the  English  Post- 
masters-General, Cotton  and  Frankland,  objected  to 
the  proposition,  and  favored  the  purchase  of  the  patent 
by  the  home  government.  This  accordingly  was  done 
in  1707,  and  the  American  postal  service  became 
thereby  vested  in  the  Crown.  John  Hamilton,  son  of 
Andrew,  was  appointed  to  his  father's  old  place  of 
deputy  Postmaster-General,  and  retained  it  until  1722, 
when  he  resigned.7 

6  Jameson,  Ibid.,  p.  25.     I  have  relied  on  Professor  Jameson's  notes 
on  Neale's  career,  which  are  added  to  Miss  Woolley's  monograph. 

7  Herbert  Joyce,  The  History  of  the  Post  Office  from  its  Establish- 
ment down  to  1836   (London:  Bentley,  1893),  pp.  114,  116.     Mr.  Joyce 


THE  POSTMASTER-GENERAL  225 

The  act  of  1710  which  reorganized  the  English  Post- 
Office,  although  it  was  partly  arranged  in  order  to 
provide  a  war  revenue,  represented  a  phase  of  the 
general  policy  of  William  and  Mary,  and  their  imme- 
diate successors.  Henceforth  the  Crown  meant  to 
exercise  its  prerogative  over  various  colonial  matters. 
The  act  involved  the  control  in  America  of  a  deputy 
Postmaster-General.  Yet  it  was  not  necessary  for  a 
while  to  disturb  John  Hamilton  in  his  position.  He 
had,  from  the  time  of  the  sale  of  the  old  patent  in  1707, 
been  under  direction  of  the  Crown  authorities.  It  is 
perhaps  worth  noting  that  there  was  no  express  state- 
ment in  the  act  directly  referring  to  an  American 
official.  But  frequent  allusions  to  "her  Majesty 's  Post- 
master-General ....  and  his  Deputy  and  Deputies  by 
him  thereunto  sufficiently  authorized "  gave  clear  legal 
basis  for  an  American  appointment.  The ' '  chief  Letter 
Office ' '  in  the  colonies  was  designated  as  being  at  New 
York. 

There  was  some  slight  objection  to  the  act  of  1710 
as  a  measure  of  taxation,  for  there  were  explicit  terms 
about  the  rates  of  postage.  According  to  Lieutenant- 
Governor  Alexander  Spotswood,  writing  to  the  Board 
of  Trade  in  1718,  the  people  of  Virginia  objected  to  the 
rates  as  a  kind  of  tax  which  should  have  had  the  con- 
sent of  their  own  General  Assembly.8  But  the  act  was 
designed  only  incidentally  to  produce  revenue.  So  far 
as  it  concerned  the  American  colonies,  it  was  prob- 

'has  written  from  the  sources  an  excellent  chapter  on  "  American  Posts, 
1692-1707,"  pp.  110  ff. 

8G.  L.  Beer,  British  Colonial  Policy,  1754-1765  (1907),  p.  34,  foot 
note  4. 


226  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

ably  primarily  intended  to  bring  them  into  closer  rela- 
tions with  the  home  government,  although  it  could 
hardly  help  bringing  them  into  closer  union  among 
themselves. 

Numerous  colonists  held  the  office  of  deputy  Post- 
master-General in  America.  Spotswood  of  Virginia, 
having  for  years  been  interested  in  perfecting 
postal  arrangements,  served  in  the  position  from  1730 
to  1739.  But  quite  the  most  capable  and  distinguished 
occupant  of  the  office  before  the  Revolution  was 
Benjamin  Franklin.  Franklin  made  the  American 
colonial  postal  organization  not  only  efficient,  but  also 
lucrative.  It  was  said  to  have  yielded  to  England  by 
1774  a  regular  annual  income  of  £3000  sterling.9  The 
period  of  Franklin's  service  as  deputy  Postmaster- 
General  extended  from  1753  to  1774.  In  the  latter  year 
he  was  dismissed  as  one  result  of  the  dramatic  and 
scathing  invective  directed  against  him  by  Solicitor- 
General  Wedderburn  before  the  Committee  of  the 
Privy  Council — an  attack  upon  him  for  the  part  he  had 
taken  in  procuring  and  making  public  the  letters  of 
Hutchinson  and  Oliver  which  were  supposed  to  be  dis- 
tinctly slurring  on  colonial  men  and  measures.  This 
bitter  attack,  followed  by  Franklin's  ignominious  dis- 
missal from  office,  aroused  the  American  colonists  to 
a  high  pitch  of  feeling  against  the  English  government, 
and  induced  them  under  what  they  regarded  as  the 
pressure  of  necessity  to  turn  to  the  creation  of  an  inde- 
pendent or  so-called  constitutional  American  Post- 
Office. 

9  American  Archives,  I,  501. 


THE  POSTMASTER-GENERAL  227 

All  through  the  early  part  of  1774  William  Goddard, 
an  energetic  printer  and  newspaper  editor  of  Phila- 
delphia and  Baltimore,  worked  hard  to  organize  an 
American  postal  establishment  independent  of  Eng- 
land. His  plan,  although  clearly  against  the  statute 
of  1710,10  met  with  very  general  encouragement.  Vari- 
ous colonial  Assemblies  approved  it.  Moreover,  it 
commended  itself  to  several  of  the  delegates  to  the 
First  Continental  Congress.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  Goddard 's  efforts  were  influential  in  bringing 
about  the  first  formal  action  in  the  matter  which  Con- 
gress took  on  July  26,  1775.  On  that  day  it  was  deter- 
mined "That  a  postmaster  General  be  appointed  for 
the  United  Colonies,  who  shall  hold  his  office  at  Philada, 
and  shall  be  allowed  a  salary  of  1000  dollars  per  an :  for 
himself. "  To  fill  the  position  thus  created,  Benjamin 
Franklin  was  unanimously  chosen  on  the  same  day. 
There  were  numerous  details  of  organization  arranged 
for  by  Congress  at  the  time.  These  need  not  concern 
us.  It  is  simply  important  to  observe  that  this  action 
marked  the  true  beginning  of  an  independent  postal 
service  under  the  direct  control  of  the  central  conti- 
nental government.11 

Throughout  the  period  of  the  Revolution  there  were 
obvious  difficulties  in  the  way  of  any  successful  postal 
organization.  These  difficulties  of  various  kinds,  but 
largely  of  an  administrative  nature,  can  be  traced  by 

10  Section  17. 

11  Goddard 's  work  can  only  be  understood  from  an  examination  of 
the  materials  collected  in  American  Archives,  I,  500-504.     II,  536-537, 
650,  803,  981-983,  1160.     IV,  184.     VI,  1012-1013. 


228  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

means  of  rather  scanty  entries  in  the  Journals  of  Con- 
gress.12 It  is  enough  to  say  that  the  Post-Office,  like 
other  administrative  work,  was  managed  through  com- 
mittees of  Congress,  although  it  was  probably  true 
that  considerable  freedom  of  direction  had  to  be  left 
to  the  Postmaster-General  himself.  Franklin  went 
to  France  in  1776,  the  year  following  his  appoint- 
ment. His  place  as  Postmaster-General  was  taken 
by  his  son-in-law,  Richard  Bache.  Bache  in  turn  was 
succeeded  early  in  1782  by  Ebenezer  Hazard.  Hazard 
retained  office  until  Washington  named  his  successor 
under  the  new  government  in  the  autumn  of  1789.  It 
was  certainly  natural  that  the  three  holders  of  the 
office  from  1775  to  1789  should  have  come  from  Penn- 
sylvania. For  most  of  that  period  Pennsylvania- 
occupying  a  central  geographical  position  well  suited 
for  administrative  work  that  involved  the  interests  of 
the  thirteen  communities — was  the  seat  of  the  central 
governmental  organization.13 

It  should  perhaps  be  noted  that  in  October,  1782,  a 
new  ordinance — the  result  of  experience  and  of  an 
effort  on  the  part  of  Congress  to  combine  various 
scattered  recommendations  which  had  been  offered 
from  time  to  time — was  formulated  with  rather  excep- 
tional care.  This  October  ordinance  remained  the  fun- 
damental law  of  the  postal  organization  until  Septem- 
ber, 1789.14 

12  December  2,  1775;  February  1,  August  29-30,  September  3,  1776, 
etc. 

13  The  dates  for  the  respective  appointments  of  Bache  and  Hazard 
were  November  7,  1776,  and  January  28,  1782.     See  Journals. 

.,  October  18  and  December  24,  1782. 


THE  POSTMASTER-GENERAL  229 

II 

From  the  standpoint  of  1789  the  postal  organization 
had  already  proved  to  be  an  important  factor  in  help- 
ing to  unite  the  colonies  and  the  states  which  were 
formed  during  the  Revolutionary  epoch.  The  roots 
of  the  organization  extended  farther  back  into  colonial 
times  than  those  of  any  central  institution  for  admin- 
istrative purposes.  In  fact  it  must  have  gradually 
assumed  many  of  the  characteristic  features  of  an 
executive  department  from  the  days  when,  under 
Neale's  patent  early  in  the  last  decade  of  the  seven- 
teenth century,  it  began  to  be  efficient  and  generally 
useful.15  It  was  not  strange  that  the  proper  readjust- 
ment of  the  postal  organization  under  the  new  govern- 
ment took  time  to  work  out.  On  ihe  other  hand  the 
Post-Office  as  a  rather  distinctively  business  or  admin- 
istrative organization^  as  distinguished  from  those 
political  organizations  like  the  Treasury  and  the 
Department  of  State  on  which  the  very  life  of  the 
nation  depended,  could  be  safely  conducted,  for  a  time 
at  any  rate,  on  the  basis  which  the  Congress  of  the 
Confederation  had  provided. 

On  September  9,  1789,  the  House  of  Representatives 
proposed  to  continue  postal  arrangements  on  the  basis 
of  the  old  ordinances — "  according  to  the  rules  and 
regulations  prescribed  by  the  ordinances  and  resolu- 
tions of  the  late  Congress. "  The  Senate  was  dis- 
. inclined  to  accept  this  suggestion,  but  it  went  no 
farther  than  to  draw  up  a  bill  which  provided  for  the 

15  Professor  Jameson  called  attention  incidentally  to  this  point  of 
view  in  his  notes  to  Miss  Woolley's  monograph  of  1894,  op.  cit.,  p.  25. 


230  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

temporary  establishment  of  a  Post-Office.  This  was 
finally  passed  and  became  the  law,  with  President 
Washington's  approval,  on  September  22.  Three  days 
later,  on  September  25,  Washington  sent  the  name  of 
Samuel  Osgood  to  the  Senate  as  first  Postmaster- 
General  under  the  Constitution.  The  nomination  was 
ratified  on  the  following  day.  Osgood  entered  upon 
his  duties  at  once.16 

Osgood,  the  first  Postmaster-General,  was  a  man 
of  education  and  experience.  He  graduated  at  Har- 
vard College  in  1770.  Besides  serving  as  an  officer 
during  the  early  days  of  the  Eevolutionary  War,  he  had 
taken  an  active  part  in  framing  the  constitution  of 
Massachusetts.  He  was  elected  to  the  Massachusetts 
Senate,  but  soon  went  to  the  Continental  Congress. 
There,  after  several  years  of  service,  he  was  chosen  in 
1785  as  one  of  the  three  Treasury  Commissioners- 
offices  that  he  and  his  two  colleagues  had  recently  sur- 
rendered in  order  to  make  way  for  Hamilton,  the  new 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury.17 

There  is  abundant  evidence  clearly  to  indicate  that 
the  temporary  arrangement  of  the  postal  organization 
was  regarded  at  the  time  as  far  from  satisfactory. 
Energy  in  its  administration  was  lacking,  and  revenues 
were  small.  In  the  first  four  annual  messages  of 
Washington  the  need  of  adequate  legal  provision  for 
the  postal  service  was  regularly  brought  to  the  atten- 
tion of  Congress.18  But  Congress,  while  by  no  means 

is  l  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  70.  Annals  of  Congress,  I,  80-82,  922-923, 
927-928.  R.  B.  Mosher,  Executive  Register,  p.  10. 

17  Appleton,  Cyclopaedia  of  American  Biography,  IV,  600. 

is  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  I,  66,  68,  83,  107,  128,  132. 


THE  POSTMASTER-GENERAL  231 

inclined  to  disregard  the  subject,  was  occupied  with 
matters  of  more  immediate  importance.  At  length, 
after  several  temporary  measures  had  been  provided, 
a  bill  was  signed  on  May  8, 1794,  by  Washington,  which 
formed  the  first  adequate  legal  and  working  basis 
for  a  permanent  national  Post-Office  as  a  settled 
establishment.19 

If  the  statutes  which  apply  to  the  postal  organiza- 
tion over  the  first  forty  years  of  its  existence  under  the 
Constitution  are  closely  observed,  it  will  be  found  that 
the  term  "Department"  was  not  used  to  characterize 
it  for  many  years  after  1789.  At  the  outset  the  Post- 
master-General was,  in  the  eyes  of  the  law,  an  official 
in  charge  of  the  "Post-Office."  At  least  as  early  as 
1810  the  postal  organization  was  definitely  termed  the 
"Post-Office  Establishment."20  The  phrase  "Post- 
Office  Department"  may  be  found  in  the  statute  law 
of  Monroe's  administration.21  Finally,  in  the  matter 
of  legal  phraseology,  attention  may  be  called  to  the 
fact  that  the  Post-Office  department  was  not  termed 
an  "Executive  Department"  until  the  revision  of  the 
statutes  in  1873.  This  last  matter  is  worth  a  moment's1 
attention. 

Soon  after  the  close  of  the  Civil  "War,  Congress  had 

w  1  Statutes  at  Large,  pp.  178,  218,  232,  357.  The  references  are  to 
the  acts  of  August  4,  1790;  March  3,  1791;  February  20,  1792;  May  8, 
1794. 

20  2  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  592.    April  30,  1810. 

214  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  102.  March  3,  1825.  The  appearance  of 
the  word  "department"  in  the  acts  of  March  2,  1799,  and  April  30, 
1810,  was  merely  incidental.  United  States  vs.  Kendall  (1837)  in  5 
Cranch,  Reports  of  Cases  .  ...  in  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  of  the 
District  of  Columbia  (1853),  p.  275. 


232  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

forced  upon  it  the  task  of  revising,  consolidating,  and 
amending  the  statutes  relating  to  the  Post-Office 
Department.  Over  a  period  of  several  years  the 
subject  was  carefully  considered  until  the  law  of  June 
8, 1872, — the  most  elaborate  statute  in  the  legal  history 
of  the  organization — was  enacted.22  Curiously  enough 
there  was  no  reference  in  the  entire  act  to  the  Depart- 
ment as  being  reckoned  in  terms  ' '  executive, " 
although  for  years  the  Postmaster-General  had  been 
a  member  of  the  Cabinet.  In  the  following  year  the 
first  edition  of  the  Eevised  Statutes  was  prepared. 
The  edition  was  approved  by  President  Grant  on  June 
22,  1874.  There  the  language  was  for  the  first  time 
explicit:  " There  shall  be  at  the  seat  of  Government 
an  Executive  Department  to  be  known  as  the  Post- 
Office  Department. ' '  It  seems  probable  that  the  failure 
to  characterize  the  Department  as  ' i  Executive ' '  in  1872 
was  a  mere  oversight.  Certainly  the  Post-Office 
Department  was  an  Executive  Department  by  virtue  of 
construction  rather  than  express  legislation  before  the 
law  of  1874  actually  termed  it  "Executive."23 

Turning  back  to  the  early  years  of  the  postal  organi- 
zation, it  is  clear  from  the  debates  in  1791  that  there 
was  at  that  time  some  fear  of  the  executive  power 
acquiring  an  influence  over  the  Post-Office.  There  was 

22  17  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  283.     The  debates  which  led  up  to  the  act 
may  be  found  in  the  Congressional  Globe,  42  Cong.,  2  sess.  (1871-1872), 
December  5,  1871-June  3,  1872,  passim. 

23  Mr.  Middleton  Beaman,  librarian  of  the  Law  Library  of  Congress 
and  the  Supreme  Court,  has  reassured  me  as  to  the  soundness  of  this 
interpretation.     Private  letter  of  April  1,  1909.     Cf.  5  Cranch,  Beports, 
op.  cit.,  pp.  204,  210-211,  232,  233,  272-274,  passim. 


THE  POSTMASTER-GENERAL  233 

an  impression  that  the  organization,  penetrating  into 
all  parts  of  the  country,  might  somehow  prove  to  be  a 
dangerous  political  instrument  if  it  should  come  under 
the  control  of  ambitious  and  unscrupulous  Presi- 
dents or  Postmasters-General.  "Through  the  medium 
of  the  post-office, "  remarked  Eepresentative  Thomas 
Hartley  of  Pennsylvania,  "a  weighty  influence  may 
be  obtained  by  the  Executive ;  this  is  guarded  against 
in  England  by  prohibiting  officers  in  the  Post-Office 
Department  from  interfering  in  elections. "  On  the 
same  occasion  Vining  of  Delaware  expressed  the  hope 
that  the  President  would  be  given  no  power  in  the 
business  of  establishing  offices.  To  a  good  President, 
he  argued,  such  power  would  be  a  burden.  To  an 
unscrupulous  President,  on  the  other  hand,  it  would 
be  dangerous  "in  those  places  only  where  his  interests 
would  be  promoted/'  By  removing  offices  of  long 
standing,  such  a  man  might  "harass  those  he  might 
suppose  inimical  to  his  ambitious  views.  "24 

According  to  the  original  act  of  September  22,  1789, 
the  Postmaster-General  was  "to  be  subject  to  the 
direction  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  in 
performing  the  duties  .of  his  office."  This  provision 
placed  the  officer  from  the  outset  within  the  range  of 
executive  control.  But  it  should  be  observed  that  it 
implied  that  the  President  might  determine  various 
matters,  about  which  the  law  was  silent,  in  accordance 
with  his  own  judgment.  It .  was  Jefferson 's  opinion 
that  postal  affairs  would  come  under  the  general 
supervision  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  inasmuch  as  the 

24  Annals  of  Congress,  2  Cong.,  I  seas.  .(1791-1793),  December  6,  1791. 


234  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

State  Department  was  intended  to  include  many 
matters  of  a  domestic  nature.  President  Washington, 
however,  adopted  a  different  view.  "The  post  office 
(as  a  branch  of  the  Bevenue),"  he  wrote  to  Secretary 
Jefferson  on  October  20,  1792,  "was  annexed  to  the 
Treasury  in  the  time  of  Mr.  Osgood;  &  when  Col° 
Pickering  was  appointed  thereto,  he  was  informed,  as 
appears  by  my  letter  to  him  dated  the  29  day  of 
August,  1791,  that  he  was  to  consider  it  in  that  light. ' ' 
This  explained  why  the  first  annual  report  of  Post- 
master-General Osgood  was  addressed  in  1790  to 
Hamilton,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.26  But  it  should 
also  be  observed  that  the  theory  of  the  Post-Office  as 
part  of  the  revenue  system  was  in  accord  with  that  of 
the  English  government,  and  was  favored  and  acted 
upon  by  the  American  Congress. 

As  early  as  1792  the  law  provided  that  the  Post- 
master-General should  render  a  quarterly  account  to 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.27  The  provision  re- 
appeared in  the  matured  statute  of  1794.28  In  1797  the 
law  prescribed  an  annual  report  from  the  Postmaster- 
General  concerning  certain  post  roads,  such  report  to 
be  rendered  to  Congress.29  In  1799  that  officer  was 
explicitly  required  to  report  annually  to  Congress 
"every  post  road  which  shall  not,  after  the  second  year 
from  its  establishment,  have  produced  one  third  of  the 

25  Gaillard  Hunt,  quoting  from  MS.  sources  in  American  Journal  of 
International  Law  (January,  1909),  III,  145-146. 

26  Annals  of  Congress,  II,  2164. 

27  1  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  232. 

28  Hid.,  pp.  357  ff. 

p.  512. 


THE  POSTMASTER-GENERAL  235 

expense  of  carrying  the  mail  on  the  same."30  The 
evidence  of  the  law  proved  clearly  that  Congress 
regarded  it  as  its  duty  to  keep  close  watch  of  the  postal 
organization  as  a  factor  in  the  revenue  system  of  the 
government. 

The  practice  of  the  Postmaster-General  of  making 
an  annual  report  on  the  condition  and  needs  of  his 
Department  to  the  President — a  practice  familiar 
enough  to-day — originated  in  an  apparently  casual 
way  under  President  Monroe.  John  Quincy  Adams 
left  this  slight  piece  of  evidence  as  a  record  of  the 
origin  of  the  practice.  Commenting  on  Postmaster- 
General  John  McLean — the  official  whom  he  had 
reappointed  at  the  beginning  of  his  term  in  March, 
1825,  but  who  had  served  in  the  place  under  his  pred- 
ecessor, President  Monroe — Adams  wrote : 

I  desired  him  to  make  me  a  report  upon  the  concerns  of  the 
Department,  which  has  been  usual  yearly  since  he  came  into 
the  Post  Office  [in  1823].  It  had  not  heretofore  been  cus- 
tomary, but  the  practice  was  introduced  within  these  few 
years  by  Mr.  Monroe,  and  appears  to  be  much  approved.31 

The  practice,  it  would  seem  reasonable  to  conclude, 
indicated  at  the  time  of  its  origin  an  increasing  per- 
ception on  the  part  of  Monroe  of  the  desirability  of  a 
more  intimate  knowledge  of  administrative  needs,  as 
well  perhaps  as  a  purpose  to  strengthen  his  power  of 
directing  the  administration  of  an  official  whose  work 
was  becoming  daily  of  greater  importance  to  the 
government.  At  any  rate,  from  Monroe's  day  to  this 

so  Hid.,  p.  741. 

si  Memoirs  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  VII,  54.    November  17,  1825. 


236  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

the  practice  has  been  followed,  and  amounts  to   an 
established  custom. 

Ill 

The  four  Postmasters-General  who  succeeded  Sam- 
uel Osgood — reckoning  from  Osgood's  retirement  in 
August,  1791,  to  July,  1823, — were  men  of  no  very 
marked  distinction,  with  the  single  exception  of 
Timothy  Pickering.  As  a  rule  they  had  had  college 
educations,  wrere  lawyers  by  training,  and  had  attained 
to  some  degree  of  political  prominence  in  their  various 
local  communities  or  states  before  they  were  sum- 
moned to  take  charge  of  the  national  postal  establish- 
ment. Gideon  Granger  of  Connecticut  assumed  the 
office  at  the  comparatively  youthful  age  of  thirty-four 
years,  and  held  it  continuously  for  upwards  of  twelve 
years,  from  November,  1801,  to  February  25,  1814. 
His  son,  Francis  Granger  of  New  York,  served  in  the 
same  office  under  President  W.  H.  Harrison  and  for 
a  few  months  under  Harrison 's  successor,  President 
Tyler.  The  choice  by  Monroe  of  John  McLean  in  1823 
brought  to  the  head  of  the  establishment  as  sixth 
Postmaster-General  a  young  man  of  large  ability  and 
of  positive  merits  as  an  organizer.  In  fact,  McLean 
was  the  first  really  remarkable  figure  in  the  history 
of  the  office  since  1789.32 

Although  a  native  of  New  Jersey,  where  he  was  born 
in  March,  1785,  John  McLean  came  to  Washington 
from  Ohio.  There  he  had  won  a  high  reputation  as  a 

32  Mosher,  Executive  Eegister,  pp.  10,  52,  58,  65,  78,  85,  90,  95,  123- 
124,  128,  132. 


THE  POSTMASTER-GENERAL  237 

lawyer.  In  1812,  at  the  age  of  twenty-seven,  lie  was 
sent  to  Congress  from  Cincinnati.  Later  he  was 
elected  a  judge  of  the  Ohio  Supreme  Court,  a  position 
which  he  resigned  for  the  sake  of  becoming  Commis- 
sioner of  the  General  Land  Office  in  1822.  This  latter 
place  as  well  as  the  Postmaster-Generalship  he  prob- 
ably owed  to  his  friendship  for  John  C.  Calhoun,  Sec- 
retary of  War  in  Monroe's  Cabinet.33  McLean  acted 
as  Postmaster-General  for  nearly  six  years  (1823- 
1829),  having  been  retained — like  Southard  and  Wirt 
—by  President  John  Quincy  Adams  in  1825.  When  he 
died  in  April,  1861,  he  had  served  for  more  than  thirty 
years  as  an  Associate  Justice  of  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court,  a  distinction  conferred  upon  him  by 
President  Jackson  in  March,  1829.  A  consistent  oppo- 
nent to  the  extension  of  slavery,  he  made  himself  par- 
ticularly well  known  to  men  of  anti-slavery  views  by 
the  circumstance  of  his  opinion  in  the  Dred  Scott  case 
in  1857,  when  he  dissented  along  with  his  colleague, 
Justice  Benjamin  E.  Curtis,  from  the  decision  ren- 
dered at  that  time  by  Chief- Justice  Taney.  On  the  eve 
of  President  Adams 's  administration  he  had  been  sug- 
gested as  fitted  for  a  cabinet  position.34  And,  though 
he  was  acting  on  the  Supreme  Court  bench,  President 
Tyler,  in  September,  1841,  nominated  him  as  Secre- 
tary of  War.  The  Senate  confirmed  the  nomination 
without  delay;  and  he  was  actually  commissioned  to 
the  office.  But  he  declined  the  appointment.35  He  was 

33  Adams  'a  Memoirs,  VII,  364.     November  30,  1827. 

34  Ibid.,  VI,  506,  516.    February  11,  March  2,  1825. 
^Mosher,  p.  131. 


238  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

not  merely  among  the  list  of  men  "  mentioned "  for  the 
Presidency  many  times  between  1830  and  1860.  The 
Anti-Masonic  party  in  1830  intended  to  nominate 
Judge  McLean  as  their  candidate  for  the  office  of 
President,  but  were  obliged  finally  to  agree  upon 
William  Wirt.  In  1835  the  Ohio  Legislature  named 
McLean  for  President.  In  the  Whig  convention  of 
1848  he  received  two  votes  for  President  on  the  first 
ballot.  Again  in  1856  he  was  considered  as  an  eligible 
candidate  by  the  American  party.  Finally,  his  name 
appeared  on  the  first  three  ballots  taken  at  the  Chicago 
convention — the  Eepublican  gathering  which  distin- 
guished itself  by  nominating  on  the  fourth  ballot 
Abraham  Lincoln.  By  that  time  he  was,  of  course,  too 
old  a  man  to  be  considered  seriously  for  the  burden- 
some position  of  President,  for  he  had  passed  his 
seventy-fifth  birthday  in  the  previous  month  of 
March.36 

McLean's  years  spent  in  Washington  at  the  head  of 
the  postal  administration  were  full  of  activity  and 
accomplishment.  He  impressed  the  contemporaries 
of  that  epoch  in  his  career — notably  John  Quincy 
Adams  and  Edward  Everett — as  a  man  of  force  and 

36  Besides  authorities  already  cited  in  this  paragraph,  I  have  depended 
on  E.  Stan  wood,  History  of  the  Presidency  (1898),  pp.  156,  183,  230, 
236,  264,  270,  289,  294;  J.  B.  Thayer,  Cases  on  Constitutional  Law,  I, 
492  ff. ;  W.  B.  Sprague,  A  Discourse  delivered  Sunday  Morning,  April  7, 
1861,  in  the  Second  Presbyterian  Church,  Albany,  in  commemoration  of 
the  late  Eon.  John  McLean,  LL.  D.  (Albany:  1861);  D.  W.  Clark,  The 
Problem  of  Life;  a  funeral  discourse  on  the  occasion  of  the  death  of  Hon. 

John  McLean,  LL.  D Preached  in  Wesley  Chapel,  Cincinnati,  at 

the  joint  request  of  the  Pastor  and  the  family  of  the  Deceased,  April  28, 
1861  (Cincinnati:  1861) ;  Appleton,  Cyclopaedia  of  American  Biography, 
IV,  144. 


THE  POSTMASTER-GENERAL  239 

ability.  From  the  outset,  whatever  the  rank  of  his 
office  might  be — and  he  rated  it  low,  as  we  have  seen— 
he  was  considered  as  the  social  if  not  the  intellectual 
equal  of  such  men  as  Calhoun,  Wirt,  and  others  high 
up  in  administrative  circles.  Shortly  before  his 
inauguration  as  President,  Secretary  of  State  Adams 
and  his  wife  dined  at  McLean 's  house  in  Georgetown.37 
And  later,  President  Adams  was  on  terms  of  familiar 
intimacy  with  his  Postmaster-General,  consulting  him 
on  many  matters  which  concerned  the  postal  service. 

Adams's  Memoirs  are  particularly  enlightening  on 
the  more  general  features  of  McLean's  work  as  Post- 
master-General. "Mr.  McLean  has  greatly  improved 
the  condition  of  the  Post-Office  Department,"  com- 
mented the  President  on  October  23,  1827,  "....,  and 
is  perhaps  the  most  efficient  officer  that  has  ever  been 
in  that  place.  But  it  is  a  place  of  more  patronage  and 
personal  influence  than  those  of  all  the  other  heads  of 
Departments  put  together."38  About  a  month  later 
Adams  remarked:  "This  officer,  who  came  into  that 
place  in  1823,  has  given  great  satisfaction  in  the 
administration  of  it.  For  three  or  four  years  before, 
it  had  been  a  burden  upon  the  Treasury,  requiring 
annual  appropriations  of  nearly  a  hundred  thousand 
dollars  a  year.  Its  condition  since  then  has  been  con- 
stantly improving,  and  this  year  the  receipts  exceed 
the  expenditures  more  than  a  hundred  thousand 
dollars."39 

37  Memoirs,  VI,  373,  451,  479,  488,  495. 

38  Hid.,  VII,  343. 

39 1~bid.,  VII,  363-364.  November  30.  The  figures  in  McLean's 
Keport  of  1827  were  $100,312.  Senate  Documents,  20  Cong.,  1  sess. 


240  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

McLean's  administration  of  postal  affairs  was 
orderly  and  economical.  His  first  annual  reports 
which,  as  we  have  seen,  he  was  induced  to  make  by 
President  Monroe,  were  brief.  As  a  rule,  however, 
they  revealed  improving  conditions  in  the  finances 
of  the  establishment,  notwithstanding  conspicuous 
increases  in  the  number  of  post-offices  and  the  mileage 
of  post  roads,  as  well  as  a  large  and  steadily  growing 
corps  of  employees  which  numbered  in  1829  nearly 
thirty  thousand.40  By  the  close  of  McLean's  term  the 
country  could  reckon  nearly  eight  thousand  post- 
offices,  although  there  had  been  but  seventy-five  in 
1789.  In  1827,  as  evidence  on  the  part  of  Congress  of 
appreciation  of  the  increasing  burdens  of  the  position, 
McLean's  salary  was  advanced  from  four  to  six  thou- 
sand dollars.41  The  Postmaster-General  was  thus 
placed  in  this  respect  on  an  equality  with  the  four  Sec- 
retaries in  the  Cabinet. 

The  friendly  relations  existing  between  President 
Adams  and  his  able  Postmaster-General  at  the  outset 
of  the  administration  were  not  destined  to  last  through 
the  four-year  term.  As  time  elapsed,  Adams  became 
suspicious  of  McLean.  He  was  clearly  disturbed  lest 
McLean,  a  friend  of  Calhoun  and  Andrew  Jackson, 
might  be  induced  to  use  his  position  and  influence 

(1827-1829),  I,  259.  From  1789  to  1834  there  were  only  eleven  years  in 
which  the  Post-Office  Department  did  not  turn  in  some  surplus  to  the 
Treasury.  W.  L.  Wilson,  "The  American  Post-Office,"  p.  259  in  The 
Ship  of  State,  by  Those  at  the  Helm  (Boston:  1903). 

40  McLean's  Eeport  of  1828  gives  26,956  persons.     Senate  Documents, 
20  Cong.,  2  sess.,  I,  180. 

41  4:  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  239.    See  Appendix  A  to  this  volume,  p.  396. 


THE  POSTMASTER-GENERAL  241 

against  the  real  welfare  of  the  administration  that  he 
was  serving.  Clay,  Secretary  of  State  and  distinctly 
the  leading  member  of  the  Cabinet,  was  also  suspicious 
of  McLean,  and  revealed  to  the  President  in  the  spring 
of  1825  his  bitter  feeling  against  him.42  It  was  a  time 
of  small  factions  and  disintegration  of  parties — a 
transition  epoch  in  politics.  But  Adams  was  not  the 
man  to  act  hastily,  or  to  allow  mere  impressions  to  get 
the  better  of  his  judgment  of  McLean.  Only  toward 
the  close  of  his  Presidency  do  his  Memoirs  show  deep- 
seated  bitterness  and  contempt  for  what  he  was  wont 
to  call  McLean's  "duplicity." 

There  had  been  some  disagreements  between  Adams 
and  McLean  about  certain  Post-Office  appointments 
and  other  business  relating  to  the  postal  administra- 
tion when,  in  the  spring  of  1828,  the  President  was  con- 
templating McLean 's  dismissal  from  office.  Even  then 
Adams  felt  obliged  to  admit  that  he  could  fix  upon  no 
positive  act  on  McLean's  part  that  would  really  justify 
dismissal.  Clay  was  certainly  eager  to  get  rid  of 
McLean,  and  probably  influenced  his  cabinet  associates 
as  well  as  Adams  by  his  hostile  feelings,  for  the  Cabinet 
was  occasionally  inclined  to  minimize  McLean's  claims 
to  ability  and  accomplishment.  There  is  not  enough 
evidence  on  the  basis  of  which  to  determine  the  whole 
ground  of  President  Adams's  later  impression  of 
McLean.  He  suspected  him  of  intrigue  and  partisan- 
ship— it  was  neither  necessary  to  prove  it,  nor  perhaps 
possible  to  do  so.  The  suspicion  was  enough  to  inter- 
42  Adams's  Memoirs,  VI,  539.  April  30,  1825. 


242  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

fere  with  friendly  relations,  even  though  it  did  not  lead 
to  an  actual  dismissal.43 

McLean  held  decided  views  as  to  the  general  func- 
tions of  the  Cabinet.  Moreover,  being  a  man  of  spirit, 
he  was  not  likely  to  keep  himself  in  strict  subordination 
to  a  Cabinet  which  contained  hostile  elements  which  he 
could  not  quite  respect.  Recently  it  has  become  pos- 
sible to  state  McLean's  views,  for  they  were  set  forth 
by  the  Postmaster-General  in  a  confidential  corre- 
spondence with  Edward  Everett  on  the  subject  of 
patronage  in  elections — a  correspondence  first  com- 
municated to  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  in 
February,  1908.44 

In  the  course  of  a  letter  to  Everett  of  August  27, 
1828,  McLean  wrote : 

A  wide  distinction  exists  between  the  members  of  the  Cabi- 
net, and  other  officers  of  the  government.  There  must  be 
unity  in  this  part  of  the  executive.  The  members  of  the 
Cabinet  are  the  sustainers  of  the  President,  and  as  questions 
are  often,  if  not  generally,  decided  by  concurrence  of  the 
majority  of  them,  it  becomes  the  decision  of  the  Cabinet,  and 
each  member  is  bound  to  support  it.  This  is  the  condition 
on  which  the  office  is  accepted.  But,  as  other  officers  of  the 
government  are  not  consulted,  and  can  have  no  influence  in 
the  policy  of  the  Cabinet,  the  same  obligation  is  not  imposed 
on  them. 

Eef erring  directly  to  himself,  McLean  said :  * '  I  would 
scorn  to  hold  any  office,  as  a  creature  of  any  adminis- 
tration. The  Cabinet  shall  never  think  and  decide  for 
me,  unless  I  am  a  member  of  it."45 

43  Memoirs,  VI,  539.    VII,  275,  343,  349,  355,  363-364,  544.    VIII,  51 . 

44  Proceedings,  3d  series.  I,  359-393. 

45  Hid.,  I,  387. 


THE  POSTMASTER-GENERAL  243 

McLean  sounded  an  unmistakable  note  of  defiance 
in  these  utterances.  He  was  evidently  on  the  defen- 
sive. But,  viewed  from  another  standpoint,  his  words 
lead  one  straight  to  the  thought  that  he  had  at  least 
considered  the  question  of  his  right,  or  rather  his 
claims,  to  a  place  in  the  Cabinet.  There,  at  any  rate, 
he  could  have  better  defended  himself  against  slurring 
insinuations,  or  the  direct  criticism  which  his  col- 
leagues in  the  administrative  work  of  the  government 
might  make  against  him.  Although  many  circum- 
stances had  helped  to  develop  the  office  of  Postmaster- 
General  from  1789  to  1828,  McLean,  we  may  be  sure, 
could  claim  to  have  done  much  to  raise  the  office  near 
to  the  rank  of  the  Secretaryships.  The  subject  of 
appointments  was  necessarily  often  before  the  Cabi- 
net. Kegarding  appointments  the  Postmaster-General 
had  often  to  be  consulted  outside  the  Cabinet.  Why 
should  not  that  official  be  given  a  place  in  the  select 
group  of  the  President's  special  advisers? 

There  is  but  one  clear  instance,  so  far  as  I  have  yet 
been  able  to  discover,  of  a  Postmaster-General  being 
invited  into  a  cabinet  council  before  this  time.  The 

^instance  was  recorded  by  John  Quincy  Adams  as 
(occurring  on  January  5,  1822,  when  Postmaster- 

j  (reneral  E.  J.  Meigs,  Jr.,  was  summoned  into  a  meeting 

'of  the  Cabinet  at  President  Monroe's,  while  an 
appointment — that  of  General  Van  Eensselaer  to  the 
Albany,  N.  Y.,  post-office — was  under  consideration.46 

'While  no  doubt  exceptional,  it  seems  unlikely  that  this 
instance  can  be  unique.  Moreover,  it  may  well  be 

«  Memoirs,  V,  480  ff. 


244  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

doubted  whether  McLean  himself  would  have  sub- 
scribed his  signature  to  the  confidential  statement 
made  to  Everett — that  "other  officers  of  the  govern- 
ment are  not  consulted,  and  can  have  no  influence  in 
the  policy  of  the  Cabinet " — had  his  words  been 
intended  for  publication.  He  probably  knew  better. 

IV 

In  the  latter  part  of  February,  1829,  the  list  of  Jack- 
son 's  proposed  cabinet  advisers  became  known.  On 
February  23  Webster  spoke  of  the  * l  prodigious  excite- 
ment ....  produced  by  the  new  Cabinet  List. ' '  He  did 
not  give  the  list,  but  he  remarked  that  it  "has  set  all 
Washington  in  a  buz — friends  rage,  &  foes  laugh."*7 
Two  days  later,  without  one  word  of  comment,  John 
^Quincy  Adams  recorded  the  list  in  his  Diary.  McLean 
Jwas  named  third  on  the  list  as  Postmaster-General, 
f  folio  wing  Van  Buren  as  Secretary  of  State,  and 
Ingham  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.48  On  February 
26  the  same  list  appeared  in  the  Washington  Tele- 
graph, a  paper  looked  upon  as  the  official  organ  of  the 
new  administration,  and  was  copied  widely.  The 
announcement  was  of  course  a  very  interesting  news 
item,  but  it  was  at  once  criticised  as  an  act  of  dis- 
courtesy to  the  Senate,  which  must  ratify  the  names 
before  they  could  become  appointments.  The  real 
innovation — and  as  such,  quite  worth  comment — was 
the  inclusion  of  the  office  of  Postmaster-General  in  the 
Cabinet. 

«  Letters  of  Daniel  Webster  (ed.  C.  H.  Van  Tyne),  pp.  141-142. 
«  Memoirs,  VIII,  99. 


THE  POSTMASTER-GENERAL  245 

John  McLean  was  never  nominated  by  Jackson  to 
the  Senate  as  Postmaster-General;  but  he  served  in 
that  capacity — probably  at  Jackson's  request — from 
March  4  to  March  9, 1829.  The  duties  of  that  office  fell 
to  William  T.  Barry  of  Kentucky.  Barry  as  Post- 
master-General became  a  cabinet  associate  just  as 
McLean  was  first  intended  to  be.  Something  had 
occurred  between  February  26  and  March  7  to  induce 
Jackson  to  alter  his  original  plan,  for  on  the  latter  day 
McLean  was  appointed  as  an  Associate  Justice  of  the 
Federal  Supreme  Court.49 

In  the  absence  of  direct  evidence  from  Jackson  or 
McLean  on  the  nature  of  what  occurred,  late  in  Feb- 
ruary or  early  in  March,  to  change  the  original  plan, 
we  are  obliged  to  depend  upon  at  least  three  records 
left  by  three  men,  all  of  whom  were  in  Washington  at 
the  time.  The  three  men  were  ex-President  John 
Quincy  Adams;  Amos  Kendall,  an  editor,  politician, 
and  friend  of  Jackson  who  served  as  Barry's  successor 
at  the  head  of  postal  affairs ;  and  Nathan  Sargent,  also 
an  editor  and  newspaper  correspondent  who  was 
employed  during  the  latter  part  of  his  life  in  certain 
subordinate  positions  in  the  government  service.  As 
historic  evidence  these  records  are  by  no  means  of 
equal  value,  as  the  reader  can  easily  determine. 

1.  Under  date  of  March  6,  1829,.Adams  stated  that 
he  had  heard  from  Southard,  former  Secretary  of  the 
Navy  in  his  Cabinet,  that  McLean  "was  nominated  a 
Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  ....  a  totally  new 
arrangement,  made  within  the  last  two  days — and 

49Mosher,  Executive  Eegister,  p.  108. 


246  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Mr.  Barry  of  Kentucky,  Postmaster-General. "  Four 
days  later,  on  March  10,  Adams  wrote  that  McLean 
"  declined  serving  as  the  broom  to  sweep  the  post- 
offices.  "50 

2.  The  evidence  of  Amos  Kendall  was  much  more 
circumstantial,  and  read  as  follows : 

I  was  not  consulted,  and  did  not  seek  to  know,  the  reasons 
which  controlled  the  selection  of  the  new  Cabinet  Ministers. 
In  only  one  instance  was  I  in  any  way  made  acquainted  with 
those  reasons.  John  McLean  ....  was  a  political  friend  of 
General  Jackson  who  gave  him  the  option  of  remaining  at  the 
head  of  the  Post-Office  Department,  or  accepting  a  seat  on 
the  bench  of  the  Supreme  Court  then  vacant.  He  decided 
to  remain  in  the  Department,  but  was  soon  induced  to  change 
his  mind  by  the  management  of  Duff  Green.  Green  was 
extremely  proscriptive  and  many  postmasters  were  very 
obnoxious  to  him,  some  of  them  deservedly  so.  He  presented 
certain  cases  to  Mr.  McLean  and  asked  whether  he  would 
remove  them,  and  was  answered  in  the  negative.  He  pre- 
sented the  same  cases  to  General  Jackson,  inquiring  whether 
they  ought  not  to  be  removed,  and  was  answered  in  the 
affirmative.  Mr.  McLean  was  an  aspirant  to  the  Presidency, 
and  very  popular  with  the  postmasters;  and  when  he  found 
that  he  should  probably  not  be  able  to  protect  them  from 
removal  without  losing  the  favor  of  the  President  and  his 
friends,  he  changed  his  mind  and  signified  that  upon  reflec- 
tion he  preferred  the  judgeship.51 

3.  Sargent's    record    was    remarkably    elaborate. 
While  in  essential  accord  with  the  evidence  of  both 
Adams  and  Kendall,  it  introduced  several  new  ideas. 

so  Memoirs,  VIII,  99,  109-110. 

si  Autobiography  of  Amos  Kendall,  ed.   by  his  son-in-law,   William 
Stickney  (1872),  pp.  304-305. 


THE  POSTMASTER-GENERAL  247 

"What  I  am  about  to  relate,"  wrote  Sargent,  "in 
regard  to  Judge  McLean 's  appointment  was  stated  by 
General  Cass,  at  General  Porter's  in  my  presence,  on 
the  evening  after  the  conversation  between  General 
Jackson  and  Judge  McLean  ....  occurred,  and  which, 
he  said  he  had  just  had  repeated  to  him  by  the  latter 
gentleman,  with  whom  we  knew  he  was  on  very  inti- 
mate terms.  Mr.  McLean  had  been  Postmaster- 
General  about  six  years  ....  and  was  understood,  as 
he  was  '  a  Jackson  man, '  to  be  an  aspirant  for  the  posi- 
tion of  Secretary  of  War.  But,  as  General  Jackson 
had  determined  to  put  Major  Eaton  at  the  head  of  that 
department,  Mr.  McLean's  wishes  could  not  be  grati- 
fied. But  the  General  proposed  that  if  he  should 
remain  where  he  was,  the  salary  of  the  office  should  be 
raised,  and  it  should  be  made  a  cabinet  office.  With 
this  Mr.  McLean  was  content,  and  the  new  arrange- 
ment was  soon  publicly  understood.  It  was  known, 
however,  that  General  Jackson  would  adopt  the  policy 
indicated  by  the  Telegraph  in  the  preceding  November : 
viz.,  that  of  'rewarding  his  friends  and  punishing  his 
enemies. '  As  Mr.  McLean  had  always  refused  to  make 
appointments  and  removals  upon  the  ground  of  party 
affinities,  and  had  strongly  condemned  such  a  practice, 
the  inquiry  was  naturally  made,  'If  General  Jackson 
adopts  this  policy,  what  will  Mr.  McLean  do  1  Will  he 
carry  it  out  or  refuse?'  " 

At  this  point  of  the  narrative  Sargent  proceeds  to 
tell  of  the  happenings  as  follows : 

The  question  was  so  often  put,  and  so  emphatically  answered 
by  his  nearest  friends  in  the  negative,  that  the  General 


248  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

deemed  it  proper  to  come  to  an  understanding  with,  and  sent 
for,  Mr.  McLean,  to  whom  he  stated  that  he  should  adopt  the 
policy  of  removing  from  such  offices  such  persons  as  had, 
during  the  canvass  for  President,  taken  an  active  part  in 
politics,  and  asked  whether  he  had  any  objection  to  this  line 
of  action.  To  this  Mr.  McLean  replied  in  the  negative,  * '  but, ' ' 
said  he,  "if  this  rule  should  be  adopted,  it  will  operate  as 
well  against  your  friends  as  those  of  Mr.  Adams,  as  it  must 
be  impartially  executed."  To  this  General  Jackson  made  no 
reply ;  but  after  walking  up  and  down  the  room  several  times, 
as  if  cogitating  with  himself,  he  said,  "Mr.  McLean,  will  you 
accept  a  seat  upon  the  bench  of  the  Supreme  Court?"  This 
was  answered  in  the  affirmative;  and  he  was  in  due  time 
nominated,  as  we,  who  had  had  the  story  related  to  us, 
expected.52 

Adams's  brief  statement  that  McLean  declined  to 
serve  as  "the  broom  to  sweep  the  post-offices "  would 
seem  to  contain  the  important  truth.  With  McLean 
perfectly  clear  regarding  the  need  of  unity  in  the 
Cabinet,  it  is  inconceivable  that  he  should  have 
accepted  a  place  among  Jackson's  regular  advisers 
under  circumstances  almost  certain  to  compromise 
him.  His  principles  would  never  have  permitted  Mm 
to  countenance  the  dictation  of  an  outsider  such  as 
Duff  Green,  editor  of  the  Telegraph.  There  was  no 
reasonable  basis  for  Sargent's  belief  that  the  question 
of  salary  had.  anything  to  do  with  McLean's  accepting 
or  refusing  the  Postmaster-Generalship.  The  office 
was  already  paid  as  well  as  any  of  the  Secretaryships. 
On  the  other  hand,  Sargent's  view  that  McLean  would 

52 Public  Men  and  Events  from  the  Commencement  of  Mr.  Monroe's 
Administration,  in  1817,  to  the  Close  of  Mr.  Fillmore's  ....  in  1853 
(Philadelphia:  1875),  I,  165-166. 


THE  POSTMASTER-GENERAL  249 

,  be  content  with  a  cabinet  place  is  interesting  and 
i  plausible,  for  it  is  in  accord  with  the  unmistakable 
impression  which  McLean  had  already  conveyed  con- 
fidentially to  Everett  in  his  letter  of  the  previous 
*  summer.  It  is  indeed  possible  that  McLean  himself 
may  have  suggested  to  Jackson  the  importance  as  well 
as  the  desirability  of  giving  a  place  in  the  Cabinet  to 
the  Postmaster-General.  There  is,  however,  no  evi- 
dence on  the  point.  We  may  be  certain  of  this :  that  so 
soon  as  McLean  was  convinced  that  Jackson  had 
determined  to  use  the  postal  organization  for  personal 
and  partisan  purposes,  he  knew  that  he  could  accept 
no  place  within  Jackson's  formal  circle  of  reputable 
advisers,  for  he  had  indicated  to  Everett,  and  pre- 
sumably to  other  friends,  that  he  had  clear  ideals  about 
the  uses  of  political  patronage.  The  Associate  Justice- 
ship afforded  him  an  honorable  and,  doubtless,  a 
desirable  way  out  of  the  dilemma. 


In  introducing  the  Postmaster-General  into  the 
circle  of  the  Cabinet  for  the  first  time,  President  Jack- 
son inaugurated  a  practice  that  has  become  a  settled 
custom.  There  were,  no  doubt,  reasons  personal  to 
Jackson  for  acting  as  he  did  in  the  matter.  And  these 
personal  reasons  have  been  dwelt  upon  by  every  writer 
who  has  attempted  to  study  the  epoch.  On  the  other 
hand,  far  too  little  attention  has  hitherto  been  given 
to  certain  features  in  the  situation  which  tended  in  the 
long  run — if  not  in  Jackson's  eyes — to  justify  the 
practice.  The  postal  organization  in  1829  had  reached 


250  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

a  stage  in  its  development  when  it  may  have  seemed  to 
the  chief  magistrate  to  demand  closer  relations 
between  him  and  its  administrative  head,  the  Post- 
master-General. It  looked  very  much  as  though  Presi- 
dent Monroe,  late  in  his  second  term,  had  come  to  some 
such  conclusion  when  he  asked  for  an  annual  report 
from  Postmaster-General  McLean.  Again,  the  fact 
that  the  significance  of  postal  development — itself  the 
result  of  complex  and  very  far-reaching  processes- 
was  brought  clearly  before  his  contemporaries  by 
McLean,  revealed  McLean  as  a  man  of  marked  admin- 
istrative ability  and  judgment  whom  Jackson  could 
hardly  afford  to  overlook.  Already  the  burdens  and 
responsibility  of  the  office  had  assumed  such  import- 
ance in  the  eyes  of  Congress  that  that  somewhat  inert 
body  had  been  willing  to  place  it  on  a  footing  of 
equality  with  the  Secretaryships  in  respect  to  salary. 
In  future  the  salary  alone  would  be  enough  to  attract 
rather  a  better  type  of  man  to  it. 

There  were,  of  course,  dangers  in  introducing  the 
Postmaster-General  into  the  Cabinet,  if  it  were 
assumed  that  the  officer  could  become  in  that  way  the 
mere  puppet  of  an  unscrupulous  President  bent  upon 
manipulating  every  appointment  within  his  range  to 
his  personal  ends.  No  doubt  these  dangers  were  to 
some  extent  realized  under  Jackson.  And  there  was 
occasional  criticism  directed  to  exactly  this  aspect  of 
the  matter.53  But,  after  all,  the  presence  of  the  Post- 
master-General in  the  Cabinet,  or  his  absence  from  it, 

53  Pliny  Miles,  Postal  Reform :  Its  urgent  Necessity  and  Practicability 
(1855),  p.  103. 


THE  POSTMASTER-GENERAL  251 

could  hardly  restrain  an  unscrupulous  President  from 
questionable  methods  of  influence  over  appointments 
within  the  postal  organization.  In  any  case,  the  power 
of  that  influence  was  bound  to  be  to  some  degree  in  the 
President's  hands.  In  introducing  the  Postmaster- 
General  into  the  Cabinet,  Jackson  began  a  practice 
that  probably  tended,  in  the  long  run,  to  invigorate  the 
workings  of  the  postal  establishment,  notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  Barry,  successor  to  McLean  in  the  office, 
made  a  conspicuously  dismal  record.54 

By  a  curious  coincidence  in  the  following  year — 
late  in  the  autumn  of  1830 — an  English  Postmaster- 
General,  the  fifth  Duke  of  Richmond,  was  for  the  first 
time  in  the  history  of  the  English  office  given  a  seat  in 
the  Cabinet.  The  Duke  of  Richmond  thus  served  in 
the  ministry  of  Lord  Grey  until  the  spring  of  1834.55 
Since  the  opening  of  Queen  Victoria's  reign  in  1837 
the  English  office  has  been  regarded  as  political,  usually 
changing  its  occupant  with  every  change  of  ministry.56 
The  English  Postmaster-General  has  often  been 
reckoned  a  member  of  the  Cabinet  since  that  time, 
although  it  was  not  until  1866  that  he  could  be  a  mem- 
ber of  the  House  of  Commons.  Among  the  more 
notable  occupants  of  the  office,  who  have  been  members 
of  English  Cabinets,  may  be  named:  the  Marquis  of 
Clanricarde  (1846-1852) ;  the  Duke  of  Argyll  (1856- 

54  Messages  and  Papers,  III,  116-117.     Senate  Documents,  23  Cong., 
1  sess.  (1833-1835),  I,  41-47.    Ibid.,  23  Cong.,  2  sess.,  I,  40-45.    Kendall, 

.Autobiography,  p.  331.     Webster,  Worlcs  (ed.  1851),  IV,  148  ff. 

55  Based  upon  an  examination  of  lists  of  the  ministries  which  appeared 
year  by  year  in  the  Eoyal  Kalendars  from  1808.     See  Greville,  Memoirs 
(ed.  Henry  Keeve,  1875),  II,  66-68.     Ill,  88. 

56  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I,  113. 


252  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

1859);  the  Earl  of  Elgin  (1860);  Lord  Stanley  of 
Alderley  (1861-1865);  Lord  Hartington  (1869-1872); 
and  the  Eight  Honorable  Lord  John  J.  E.  Manners 
(1875-1880).  The  English  Postmaster-General  has 
held  a  seat  in  nearly  every  Cabinet  since  1892. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that,  in  both  the  English  and 
the  American  governments,  the  office  of  Postmaster- 
General  has  been  regarded  for  the  better  part  of  a 
century  as  worthy  of  high  political  distinction.  More- 
over, in  each  country  that  distinction  would  seem  to  be 
largely  due  to  a  recognition  of  the  immense  importance 
to  the  people  of  a  well-administered  postal  organiza- 
tion. 


CHAPTER  X 

ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE  SECEETAEYSHIP  OF  THE 
INTEEIOB 


Secretaryship  of  the  Interior  established  in 
M.  18491  is  the  last  of  the  principal  administrative 
offices  which  went  back  for  its  inception  to  the  notable 
decade  of  1780-1790,  the  epoch  during  which  the  Con- 
stitution was  drawn  up  and  ratified.  The  particular 
circumstance  which  forced  the  need  of  its  establish- 
ment on  Congress  was  the  enormous  burden  of  work 
that  rested  on  the  shoulders  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury.  This  burden  was  partly  due  to  the  war  with 
Mexico  which  involved  such  resulting  acquisitions  of 
territory  by  the  United  States  as  New  Mexico  and 
California.  It  was  increased  by  the  addition  of  the 
Oregon  country,  which  came  to  us  in  1846  by  treaty. 

Although  the  ideal  which  the  statute  of  1849  made 
effective  was  considerably  older,  the  statute  itself  was 
the  indirect  result  of  suggestions  on  the  part  of  Presi- 
dents, statesmen,  and  others  familiar  with  administra- 
tive needs,  which  had  been  expressed  from  time  to  time 
since  the  days  of  Madison's  Presidency. 


When  Pelatiah  Webster  printed  his  remarkable 
pamphlet  in  1783  entitled  A  Dissertation  on  the  Politi- 
cal Union  and  Constitution  of  the  Thirteen  United 

i  9  Statutes  at  Large,  pp.  395  ff.    March  3,  1849. 


254  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

States  of  North- America,  he  then  proposed  in  his 
scheme  of  government  that  there  should  be  a  "Secre- 
tary of  State, "  an  official  who,  as  he  phrased  his 
thought,  "takes  knowledge  of  the  general  policy  and 

internal  government I  mention  a  Secretary  of 

State,"  he  added,  "because  all  other  nations  have  one 
....  the  multiplicity  of  affairs  which  naturally  fall 
into  his  office  will  grow  so  fast,  that  I  imagine  we  shall 
soon  be  under  necessity  of  appointing  one."2  Four 
years  later,  in  his  project  of  a  Council  of  State  pre- 
sented to  the  Philadelphia  Convention,  Gouverneur 
Morris  arranged  for  a  Secretary  of  Domestic  Affairs 
whose  business  it  should  be  to  "attend  to  matters  of 
general  policy,  the  state  of  agriculture  and  manufac- 
tures, the  opening  of  roads  and  navigations  and 
the  facilitating  communications  through  the  United 
States.  "3  Likewise,  in  his  plan  of  government  for 
France  drawn  up  a  few  years  after  1787,  Morris  made 
provision  for  a  "Minister  of  the  Interior. " 

In  fact,  the  conception  of  some  such  administrative 
official,  however  crudely  or  variously  expressed,  was 
perfectly  familiar  to  the  epoch.  Charles  Pinckney's 
Observations  contained  references  to  a  Home  Depart- 
ment. Pinckney  expressed  himself  as  convinced  of 
"the  necessity  which  exists  at  present,  and  which  must 
every  day  increase,  of  appointing  a  Secretary  for  the 
Home  Department."  Apparently  he  meant  that  such 
an  officer  should  be  made  a  member  of  the  Cabinet 

2  Essays,  pp.  213-214.    The  pamphlet  was  first  printed  at  Philadelphia 
and  published  on  February  16,  1783. 

3  Elliot,  Debates,  V,  446. 

*  Sparks,  Life  of  Gouverneur  Morris,  III,  481  ff. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  INTERIOR    255 

Council.5  In  the  autumn  of  1788  Madison  was  popu- 
larly considered  as  the  right  sort  of  man  to  be  placed 
in  charge  of  a  Home  Department  under  the  Constitu- 
tion, should  Congress  decide  to  provide  for  such  an 
organization.6  In  the  early  summer  of  1789,  during 
the  course  of  the  debates  on  the  proper  number  and 
arrangement  of  departments,  Eepresentative  John 
Vining  of  Delaware  was  the  leading  figure  to  propose 
and  urge  the  establishment  of  a  "  Domestic "  depart- 
ment.7 

While  Congress  was  not  inclined  to  establish  an  inde- 
pendent Home  Department,  it  could  not  escape  alto- 
gether the  force  of  sentiment  and  the  arguments  in 
favor  of  the  suggested  department.  Accordingly  it 
provided  a  combination  of  the  duties  of  a  Home  Depart- 
ment with  those  of  Foreign  Affairs.  In  other  words  it 
substituted  a  Department  and  Secretary  of  State  in 
place  of  its  first  intention,  a  Department  and  Secretary 
of  Foreign  Affairs. 

In  the  winter  of  1789-1790,  while  Jefferson  was  hesi- 
tating about  accepting  the  appointment  as  Secretary 
of  State,  he  gave  as  one  reason  for  hesitation  his  objec- 
tion to  having  domestic  as  well  as  foreign  business  to 
attend  to.  Jefferson  confided  the  first  hint  of  his  objec- 
tion to  his  friend,  William  Short,  in  a  letter  of  Decem- 
ber 14,  1789.8  The  next  day  Jefferson  put  his  thought 

5  Charles  Pinckney,  Observations  on  the  Plan  of  Government  submitted 
to  the  Federal  Convention,  pp.  10-11. 

6  D.  Humphreys  to  Jefferson,  writing  from  Mount  Vernon,  November 
"29,  1788,  in  Bancroft,  History  of  the  Formation  of  the  Constitution,  II, 
485. 

T  Annals  of  Congress,  I,  385-386,  412,  692-695,  passim. 
8  Jefferson,  Writings  (ed.  Ford),  V,  139. 


256  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

in  these  words  addressed  to  President  Washington: 
"But  when  I  contemplate  the  extent  of  that  office, 
embracing  as  it  does  the  principal  mass  of  domestic 
administration,  together  with  the  foreign,  I  cannot  be 
insensible  to  my  inequality  to  it."9  On  the  following 
January  4,  Madison,  who  had  recently  seen  Jefferson 
at  Monticello,  made  Jefferson's  objection  quite  clear  to 
Washington.  '  '  I  was  sorry  to  find  him, ' '  wrote  Madi- 
son, "so  little  biassed  in  favor  of  the  domestic  service 
allotted  to  him,  but  was  glad  that  his  difficulties  seemed 
to  result  chiefly  from  what  I  take  to  be  an  erroneous 
view  of  the  kind  and  quantity  of  business  annexed  to 
....  the  foreign  department.  He  apprehends, ' '  added 
Madison,  "that  it  will  far  exceed  the  latter  which  has 
of  itself  no  terrors  to  him. ' no 

The  theoretical  stage  of  the  problem  was  concluded 
when  Jefferson  took  office  in  March,  1790,  and  began  to 
administer  the  business  of  the  Department  of  State. 
Within  a  few  months  of  that  time  he  sent  to  his  col- 
league, Secretary  Hamilton,  an  estimate  of  department 
expenses,  reckoning  them  from  April,  1790,  for  one 
year.  It  should  be  observed  that  Jefferson  divided  the 
expenses  on  the  basis  of  the  "Home  Office"  ($1836) 
and  the  "Foreign  Office"  ($2625).  The  figures  are 
enough  to  indicate  that  the  domestic  functions  of  the 
Secretary  of  State  were  almost  certain  to  be  exten- 
sive.11 Moreover  the  next  twenty  years  were  to  deter- 

9  Writings,  V,  140. 

10  H.  S.  Eandall,  Life  of  Thomas  Jefferson  (1858),  I,  557,  note  1. 

11  Gaillard  Hunt  in  American  Journal  of  International  Law  (January, 
1909),  III,  148.     Washington  placed  the  Mint  under  Jefferson's  charge. 
Hid.,  p.  145. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  INTERIOR    257 

mine  unmistakably  that  the  Secretary  of  State  was  to 
be  overburdened  with  his  manifold  duties.  In  fact,  by 
the  spring  of  1812,  all  the  administrative  departments 
were  so  pressed  with  work  that  President  Madison 
addressed  a  special  message  to  both  House  and  Senate 
on  the  subject.12 

II 

Madison's  brief  word  written  in  the  face  of  impend- 
ing war  sounded  a  note  of  warning  that  could  not 
easily  be  overlooked.  Some  minor  changes,  it  is  true, 
had  already  been  accomplished,  revealing  the  fact  that 
Congress  had  not  been  quite  heedless  of  the  need  of 
reforms  and  alterations  in  the  departmental  organiza- 
tions.13 But  these  changes  were  not  fundamental 
enough  to  afford  relief.  On  June  12,  exactly  six  days 
before  the  formal  declaration  of  war  with  England,  we 
come  upon  the  first  clear  recommendation  of  a  Home 
Department  arising  from  a  congressional  source  after 
1789. 

Near  the  beginning  of  a  report  read  to  the  House  of 
Representatives  on  that  day — a  report  chiefly  con- 
cerned with  conditions  that  had  prevailed  for  many 
years  in  the  Patent  Office  as  a  subordinate  division  in 
the  State  Department — there  occurred  this  definite 
suggestion:  "Your  committee,  without  entering  into 
any  detailed  reasoning  on  the  subject,  offer  for  the  con- 

•      12  Messages  and  Papers,  I,  499.    April  20. 

«  Annals  of  Congress,  10  Cong.,  2  sess.  (1808-1809),  pp.  347  ff.,  352, 
387-388,  437,  443,  450-452,  461,  1546,  1549,  1553,  1559-1560,  1575,  1833- 
1835  (text  of  act). 


258  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

sideration  of  the  Legislature  the  propriety  and  neces- 
sity of  authorizing  a  Home  Department,  distinct  from 
the  departments  already  established  by  law.  Such 
departments, "  continued  the  record,  "are  known  to 
other  Governments,  and  their  benefits  have  been  recog- 
nized in  territories  far  less  extensive  than  those  of  the 
United  States.  "14  This  came  from  a  committee  of 
which  Adam  Seybert  of  Pennsylvania  was  chairman 
which  had  been  appointed  to  examine  into  the  organi- 
zation and  workings  of  the  Patent  Establishment.15  On 
May  25  Seybert  had  addressed  a  letter  to  Monroe,  the 
Secretary  of  State,  asking  for  his  observations  on  the 
subject,  saying  at  the  same  time  that  the  occasion 
might  afford  Monroe  an  opportunity  to  outline  a  plan 
for  separating  the  Patent  Establishment  from  the 
State  Department.16  Monroe  was  harassed  with  work. 
However,  he  gave  the  matter  some  attention,  and 
answered  Seybert 's  letter  on  June  10.  In  general 
Monroe  was  opposed  to  all  inferior  independent 
departments.  The  Patent  Office,  he  thought,  might  as 
well  remain  in  charge  of  the  State  Department.  He 
admitted,  however,  that  foreign  affairs  constituted  in 
themselves  a  sufficient  trust  for  the  person  at  the  head 
of  the  Department  of  State.  ' '  They  are, ' '  he  reflected, 
"very  extensive,  complicated  and  important,  and  are 
becoming  more  so  daily. ' n7 

There  was  an  ominous  tone  in  Monroe 's  reply  which 

u  Annals  of  Congress,  12  Cong.  1  sess.  (1811-1813),  Pt.  II,  p.  2179. 
15  Hid.,  p.  1435. 

.,  pp.  2190  ff. 

L,  p.  2192. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  INTERIOR    259 

could  not  have  escaped  attentive  ears.  At  any  rate 
Seybert's  committee  felt  free  to  broach  the  subject  of 
a  new  department  to  the  House,  declaring  that  foreign 
relations  were  essentially  distinct  "from  many  objects 
in  the  interior  of  our  country/'  The  report  was 
printed.  But  no  action  was  taken  on  its  special  sug- 
gestion of  a  Home  Department,  for  the  country  was 
soon  experiencing  the  stress  and  strain  of  war. 

By  1815  serious  weaknesses  extending  down  from 
the  principal  offices  through  all  the  national  adminis- 
trative organizations  had  become  more  real  and  were 
more  evident  than  ever.  Arrangements  within  the  War 
Department  were  most  unsatisfactory.  Within  this 
department  Indian  affairs  had  proved  to  be  peculiarly 
troublesome.  On  March  2,  1815,  the  Senate  passed  a 
resolution  requesting  President  Madison  to  instruct 
the  Secretary  of  War  to  make  a  report  on  Indian 
affairs  chiefly  for  the  purpose,  it  would  seem,  of  obtain- 
ing a  sound  basis  of  information  on  which  to  reorgan- 
ize that  subordinate  branch  of  administration.  There 
was  already  some  disposition  to  place  Indian  affairs 
in  a  department  quite  by  themselves.18 

At  the  moment  the  headship  of  the  War  Department 
was  in  a  state  of  transition,  consequently  more  than  a 
year  elapsed  before  the  Senate's  request  was  answered. 
Then  came  a  report  on  Indian  affairs  from  Secretary 
William  H.  Crawford ;  it  was  dated  March  13, 1816,  and 
•was  communicated  to  the  Senate  on  the  following  day. 
It  was  a  long  and  well-considered  document.  From 

.,  13  Cong.,  3  sess.  (1814-1815),  III,  287-288. 


260  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

certain  casual  statements  one  gathers  a  clear  impres- 
sion that  Crawford  was  aware  of  the  burdens  to  which 
most  of  the  Secretaries  in  the  separate  departments 
had  long  been  subjected.  He  merely  hinted  at  "the 
creation  of  a  separate  and  independent  department" 
without  giving  any  details  of  a  plan.  But  he  was  sure 
that  if  a  new  department  were  established  "much  of 
the  miscellaneous  duties  now  belonging  to  the  Depart- 
ment of  State,  ought  to  be  transferred  to  it. ' n9 

Rather  more  than  a  month  later — on  April  20— 
Macon  of  North  Carolina  presented  to  the  Senate  a 
resolution.  This  was  passed  and  yielded  unforeseen 
results.  The  resolution  follows : 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretaries  of  the  Departments  be 
directed  to  report  jointly  to  the  Senate,  in  the  first  week  of 
the  next  session  of  Congress,  a  plan  to  insure  the  annual 
settlement  of  the  public  accounts,  and  a  more  certain  account- 
ability of  the  public  expenditure,  in  their  respective  depart- 
ments.20 

The  peculiar  merit  of  the  resolution  was  that  it 
brought  the  principal  officers  together  on  the  subject 
of  the  general  organization  of  administrative  work. 
By  the  following  December  these  officers,  in  consulta- 
tion with  the  President,  had  formulated  a  careful 
report.  This  report,  after  reviewing  the  principles  on 
which  the  several  departments  were  organized,  dwell- 
ing with  marked  stress  on  the  burdens  of  the  Secretary 
of  War,  and  commenting  on  the  notable  incongruity  in 
having  Indian  affairs  managed  in  connection  with  the 

19  American  State  Papers,  Indian  Affairs,  II,  26-88. 

20  Annals  of  Congress,  14  Cong.,  1  sess.  (1815-1816),  pp.  331-332. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  INTERIOR    261 

military  establishment,  proceeded  to  outline  on  the 
grounds  of  actual  experience  the  first  clear  plan  for  a 
Home  Department  in  our  history.  This  was  the  plan 
which  lay  behind  the  recommendation  of  Madison  made 
in  his  last  annual  message  of  December  3,  1816,  where 
he  remarked  on  "the  expediency. . .  .of  an  additional 
department  in  the  executive  branch  of  the  Government 

to  be  charged  with  duties  now  overburdening  other 

departments  and  with  such  as  have  not  been  annexed 
to  any  department.  "21 

Although  the  inspiration  for  it  may  have  come  in 
part  from  the  Senate  resolution,  this  first  plan  for  a 
Home  Department  signed  by  all  the  principal  officers 
except  Attorney-General  Rush  may  be  truly  termed  a 
cabinet  measure.  It  provided  for  a  Secretary  whose 
duty  it  should  be  to  execute  the  orders  of  the  President 
in  so  far  as  they  concerned  the  following  five  adminis- 
trative divisions:  (1)  Territorial  Governments;  (2) 
National  Highways  and  Canals;  (3)  General  Post- 
Office;  (4)  Patent  Office;  and  (5)  Indian  Department. 
The  plan  was  communicated  to  the  Senate  by  Madison 
on  December  9. 

Meantime  steps  had  been  taken  in  both  the  Senate 
and  the  House  to  consider  that  portion  of  the  message 
which  related  to  the  possible  establishment  of  an  addi- 
tional executive  department.  William  Lowndes  of 
South  Carolina,  chairman  of  the  committee  of  seven  in 

21  Messages  and  Papers,  I,  577;  Annals  of  Congress,  14  Cong.,  2  sess. 
(1816-1817),  pp.  23-30.  The  report  appeared  in  the  National  Intelli- 
gencer of  Saturday,  December  21,  1816,  and  in  Niles's  Register  of  that 
date. 


262  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

the  House  chosen  to  consider  the  subject,  addressed  a 
letter  to  the  Secretaries  on  December  22,  asking  among 
other  questions  whether  the  accountability  of  public 
officers  might  not  be  sufficiently  served  without  a  new 
executive  department.22  The  Secretaries  answered  the 
letter  carefully  on  December  31.  Their  conclusion  in 
response  to  Lowndes's  particular  query  was  this :  "We 
have  no  doubt  that  the  just  principles  of  accountability 
would  be  better  preserved,  and  economy  promoted,  by 
the  adoption  of  that  measure.  Equally  satisfied  are 
we,"  they  added,  "that  other  essential  advantages 
would  result  from  it."23 

On  January  6,  1817,  a  bill  for  the  purpose  of  estab- 
lishing a  Home  Department  was  reported  to  the  Senate 
by  Senator  Nathan  Sanf  ord  of  New  York.  The  bill  was 
similar  in  most  respects  to  the  "cabinet  plan";  but  it 
introduced  the  "District  of  Columbia"  as  a  division  of 
administration  in  the  new  department  and  omitted  the 
division  of  ' '  National  Highways  and  Canals. ' '  Among 
minor  readjustments  it  placed  the  Mint  under  the 
supervision  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  It  ran 
a  brief  course  in  the  Senate.  On  January  29,  by  a  vote 
of  twenty-three  to  eleven,  the  Senate  refused  to  listen 
to  a  third  reading.  Two  Senators  of  distinction 
opposed  the  measure,  Bufus  King  of  New  York  and 
Nathaniel  Macon  of  North  Carolina,  the  latter  a  mem- 
ber of  the  special  Senate  committee  which  had  intro- 
duced the  bill.  King  recalled  the  discussions  of  1789 
on  a  similar  project,  dwelling  at  length  upon  the  oppo- 

22  Annals,  14  Cong.,  2  sess.,  pp.  697-698. 

23  Hid.,  p.  699. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  INTERIOR    263 

sition  at  that  time.  He  admitted  that  times  had 
changed,  yet  he  failed,  he  said,  to  find  much  reason 
for  multiplying  departments  or  for  having  —  as  he 
expressed  it  —  two  Departments  of  State.  A  new 
department  implied  that  the  Secretary  "  would  have  a 
place  in  the  Cabinet,  and  be  one  of  the  President's 
counsellors."  The  bill  reached  the  House  on  January 
20.  The  next  day  Lowndes  read  his  correspondence 
with  the  Secretaries.  Although  the  reply  of  the  Secre- 
taries of  December  31  was  judicious,  it  could  hardly 
have  helped  the  progress  of  the  bill,  for  it  was  in  no 
way  compelling  or  conclusive  of  the  need  of  a  new 
department.24 

The  failure  to  establish  a  Home  Department  in  1817 
calls  for  a  brief  comment.  President,  Secretaries, 
certain  Senators  and  Representatives,  and  doubtless 
many  of  the  more  thoughtful  citizens  at  all  well 
informed  about  government  administration  were  in- 
clined to  favor  the  measure,  yet  when  the  measure 
came  to  the  point  of  actual  construction  and  enact- 
ment, it  was  halted  and  in  the  end  cast  out.  To  the 
reader  of  congressional  and  newspaper  evidence  cov- 
ering the  years  1816-1817,  two  questions  will  be  fre- 
quently suggested.  It  is  impossible,  moreover,  to 
escape  the  belief  that  both  questions  were  occasionally 
before  the  minds  of  men  living  in  those  days. 
(1)  Could  a  Home  Department  be  organized  and 
administered  with  a  view  to  economy?  (2)  Would  its 
'  creation  be  a  constitutional  measure  ? 


id.,  pp.  18-19,  23-30,  33,  47,  52,  59,  60,  70,  74-75,  88,  234-235, 
697-699. 


264  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

It  should  be  remembered  that  the  plan  of  a  Home 
Department,  while  enforced  by  the  growing  burdens  of 
administration — some  of  these  burdens  doubtless  the 
direct  result  of  the  war,  and  others  of  much  longer 
standing — originated  in  an  effort  to  bring  all  the  exist- 
ing departments  into  clear  accountability  for  their 
expenditures.  Without  more  definite  principles  of 
accountability  than  had  hitherto  existed,  any  addi- 
tional department  would  tend  not  only  to  increase  the 
financial  burdens  of  the  government  but  to  render  the 
solution  of  the  basic  problem  more  difficult.  From  the 
standpoint  of  improved  administration  a  Home  Depart- 
ment would  seem  to  have  been  amply  justified  by  181 7. 
From  the  standpoint  of  national  economy — a  subject 
of  special  moment  for  the  next  decade — it  was  a  meas- 
ure of  doubtful  consequences  and  might,  in  view  of 
other  needs,  be  indefinitely  postponed. 

There  was  doubt  about  the  constitutionality  of  a 
Home  Department.  This  was  plainly  revealed  by  an 
anonymous  writer  in  the  National  Intelligencer  who 
printed  his  reflections  on  the  organization  of  executive 
departments  on  February  20  and  22,  1817.25  Among 
other  things  this  writer  proposed  to  obtain  a  "general 
enactment  for  the  construction  of  the  departments " 

25  The  writer,  whoever  he  was,  showed  some  ingenuity.  He  favored 
four  principal  departments:  (1)  Kevenue;  (2)  Domestic  Affairs;  (3) 
Foreign  Affairs;  (4)  War.  "Domestic  Affairs,"  he  wrote,  "naturally 
claim  attention  anterior  to  foreign  affairs."  The  War  Department  he 
divided  into  two  divisions — army  and  navy.  The  heads  or  ' '  conductors ' ; 
of  these  two  divisions  were  to  constitute  a  ' '  Board  of  War. ' '  Domestic 
affairs  he  placed  in  five  divisions,  including  Indian  Affairs,  the  Post- 
Office,  the  Land-Office,  the  Patent  Office,  and  the  Mint.  Were  these 
articles  written  by  Judge  A.  B.  Woodward? 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  INTERIOR    265 

in  the  shape  of  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution. 
Belief  in  the  absence  of  constitutional  power  undoubt- 
edly made  certain  minds  in  1817  peculiarly  sensitive 
to  and  critical  of  what  Jackson  characterized  many 
years  later  as  the  "supposed  tendency  to  increase 
....  the  ....  bias  of  the  federal  system  toward  the 
exercise  of  authority  not  delegated  to  it."26 

In  this  connection  it  should  be  noted  that  the  project 
of  a  Home  Department  was  inevitably  entangled  with 
that  series  of  speculations  which  marked  the  entire 
movement  for  internal  improvements — a  movement 
which  had  its  sources  in  the  fundamental  question  of 
the  proper  disposition  of  the  nation's  money.  There 
was  apprehension  lest  the  establishment  of  a  Home 
Department  would  be  used  as  an  argument  for 
enlarging  the  sphere  of  domestic  legislation  by  the 
general  government. 


Ill 


In  1824  new  light  is  shed  upon  the  path  of  the  inves- 
tigator bent  upon  accounting  for  the  establishment  of 
the  Department  of  the  Interior  in  1849.  Clay  could 
declare  in  1824  with  conviction  that  '  '  a  new  world  has 
come  into  being  since  the  Constitution  was  adopted. ' ' 
Already,  three  years  before  this  utterance  in  the  House 
of  Representatives,  John  Quincy  Adams,  forced  by 
what  he  characterized  as  "the  increase  of  the  inquisi- 
tive spirit  in  Congress"  to  make  investigations  into 

»  December  8,  1829.     Messages  and  Papers,  II,  461-462. 
*  January  30,  1824. 


266  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

his  own  department,  recorded  these  comparisons  and 
contrasts : 

The  foreign  correspondence  ....  remained  much  the  same 

now  as  it  was  in  1800 But  the  interior  correspondence 

then  was  with  sixteen  States ;  it  is  now  with  twenty-four.  It 
was  then  with  a  population  of  less  than  five,  and  now  of  more 
than  nine  millions At  that  time  there  were  in  Con- 
gress about  one  hundred  and  thirty  members;  there  are  now 
upwards  of  two  hundred  and  thirty.  Then  two  or  three 
octavo  and  one  folio  volume  constituted  all  the  documents 
printed  at  a  session.  Now  there  are  from  fifteen  to  twenty 
volumes  published  every  year.  There  are  assuredly  five  calls 
from  Congress  for  information  and  documents  from  the 
Departments  for  one  that  there  was  then.  Every  call  requires 
a  report.28 

It  was  clear  from  these  facts  that  the  Secretary  of 
State,  unless  he  were  robust  and  capable,  might  find 
his  post  burdensome  in  the  extreme. 

There  appeared  in  the  National  Journal  of  1824 — a 
paper  of  that  day  recently  established  in  Washington 
and  edited  by  Peter  Force — various  articles  written 
by  Judge  Augustus  B.  Woodward.  The  first  of  these 
articles  that  concerns  this  inquiry  was  entitled  "On 
the  Necessity  and  Importance  of  a  Department  of 
Domestic  Affairs,  in  the  Government  of  the  United 
States/'  Appearing  on  April  24,  it  was  followed  at 
irregular  intervals  by  others  which  touched  upon  the 
subject  of  administrative  organization  or  gave  detailed 
consideration  to  different  historical  aspects  of  the 
Presidency.  Judge  Woodward  had  been  a  student  of 
the  American  executive  for  years.  Whatever  he  wrote 

28  Memoirs  of  J.  Q.  Adams,  V,  239-240.    January  19,  1821. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  INTERIOR    267 

on  his  favorite  theme  was  likely  to  be  read  by  states- 
men and  other  careful  observers  of  public  affairs.  On 
friendly  terms  with  John  Quincy  Adams,  he  is  occa- 
sionally mentioned  in  Adams 's  Memoirs.  Under  date 
of  July  24,  1824,  Adams  wrote  of  Woodward's  articles 
on  the  Presidency  which  were  then  appearing  with 
some  regularity.  "They  are,"  remarked  Adams, 
"speculative  and  historical,  referring  to  past  events, 
but  bearing  so  much  upon  those  of  the  present  time 
that  I  told  him  he  was  treading  close  upon  warm 
ashes."29 

Elaboration  was  the  most  notable  feature  of  Judge 
Woodward's  plan  for  a  Department  of  Domestic 
Affairs.  Under  the  Secretary  for  such  a  department 
he  would  have  included  eight  commissioners  to  be 
charged  with  the  oversight  of  the  following  bureaux 
or  administrative  divisions:  Science  and  Art,  Public 
Economy,  Posts,  Public  Lands,  Mint,  Patents,  Indian 
Affairs,  and  Justice.  He  included  in  the  bureau  of 
Public  Economy  the  superintendence  and  execution  of 
internal  improvements  such  as  roads  and  canals,  and 
such  other  matters  as  the  care  of  unsettled  public 
lands,  the  conservation  of  forests,  slavery,  mines, 
fisheries,  and  general  police.  The  scheme  attracted 
widespread  notice  and  gained  favorable  comment  here 
and  there.  But  it  lacked  simplicity  and  failed  to 
impress  men  high  in  administrative  circles  with  its 
feasibility.30 

29  Ibid.,  VI,  401-402.     See  Note  1  at  the  end  of  this  chapter, 
so  National  Journal,  April  24,  May  29,  1824.     The  same  articles  were 
reprinted  about  a  year  later  in  the  National  Intelligencer  of  April  23, 


268  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

In  the  autumn  of  1824  President  Monroe  contem- 
plated recommending  to  Congress  a  Department  of  the 
Interior.  His  reason  for  not  doing  so  was  recorded  by 
John  Quincy  Adams  under  date  of  April  25,  1825. 
According  to  Adams,  Monroe,  having  determined  to 
recommend  an  increase  in  the  number  of  the  judges  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  was  apprehensive  lest  "it  would 
have  too  much  the  appearance  of  a  projecting  spirit  to 
recommend  also  additions  to  the  Executive  Depart- 
ment. "31  Nevertheless,  just  at  the  close  of  the  second 
session  of  the  Eighteenth  Congress,  on  March  3,  1825, 
a  member  of  the  House  offered  a  resolution  in  favor  of 
the  establishment  of  a  Home  Department  for  the  pur- 
pose of  promoting  agriculture,  manufactures,  science 
and  the  arts,  and  trade  between  the  states  by  roads 
and  canals.  The  resolution  was  promptly  voted  down 
— stamped  at  once  with  the  disapprobation  of  the 
House.32 

Such  Washington  papers  as  the  National  Intelli- 
gencer and  the  National  Journal  persisted  in  keeping 
track  of  the  general  project.  As  late  as  November  10, 
1825 — not  many  weeks  before  the  assembling  of  the 
Nineteenth  Congress — the  National  Journal  copied  a 
series  of  "Bemarks"  on  the  subject  of  a  Home  Depart- 
ment which  had  appeared  in  the  American  Athenaeum. 
"We  shall  feel  grateful,"  concluded  the  writer  in  the 
Athenaeum,  "if  any  gentlemen  will  favour  us  with  a 
paper  on  this  subject,  writing  in  a  truly  national  spirit, 

26,  and  28,  1825.     Woodward  communicated  some  of  his  ideas  to  Madi- 
son.    Writings  of  Madison  (ed.  Hunt),  IX,  206  ff. 

si  Memoirs,  VI,  532-533. 

32 Register  of  Delates,  18  Cong.,  2  sess.  (1824-1825),  I,  740. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  INTERIOR    269 

and  tending  to  elucidate  the  advantages  or  disadvan- 
tages that  may  be  expected  to  result  from  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  Home  Department  for  the  United 
States." 

John  Quincy  Adams  was  the  first  President  after 
Madison  to  call  public  attention  to  the  need  of  an  addi- 
tional executive  department.  Under  the  obligation  of 
an  "indispensable  duty,"  he  did  so  in  his  first  annual 
message  of  December  6.  Remarking  that  "the  Depart- 
ments of  Foreign  Affairs  and  of  the  Interior,  which 
early  after  the  formation  of  the  Government  had  been 
united  in  one,  continue  so  united  to  this  time,  to  the 
unquestionable  detriment  of  the  public  service, "  he 
went  on  to  refer  deferentially  to  Madison's  suggestion 
and  said : 

The  exigencies  of  the  public  service  and  its  unavoidable 
deficiencies  ....  have  added  yearly  cumulative  weight  to 
the  considerations  presented  by  him  as  persuasive  to  the 
measure,  and  in  recommending  it  to  your  deliberations  I  am 
happy  to  have  the  influence  of  his  high  authority  in  aid  of 
the  undoubting  convictions  of  my  own  experience.33 

Both  Madison  and  Adams  could  speak  with  all  the 
more  authority  on  the  subject  because  they  had  each 
had  eight  years  of  experience  as  Secretaries  of  State 
before  they  entered  upon  the  work  of  the  Presidency. 
This  recommendation  of  President  Adams  had  been 
carefully  discussed  by  the  Cabinet  before  it  was  made 
public,  as  we  know  from  the  record  of  the  Memoirs* 
Eush  of  the  Treasury  Department  urged  the  immediate 

33  Messages  and  Papers,  II,  315. 

34  VII,  62-63. 


270  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

communication  of  the  recommendation  in  the  message. 
Clay,  Secretary  of  State,  while  admitting  that  a  new 
executive  department  "was  of  most  urgent  necessity/' 
was  inclined  to  believe  that  Congress  could  not  be  per- 
suaded to  take  any  action  in  the  matter.  Nevertheless, 
the  House  promptly  sought  light  on  the  subject, 
appointing  a  special  committee,  of  which  Daniel  Web- 
ster was  chairman.35  Little  could  Webster  have 
dreamed  that  his  interest  in  the  subject,  first  aroused 
in  1825,  was  to  continue  over  an  interval  of  almost  a 
quarter  of  a  century,  and  that  finally  he  was  to  take  a 
leading  part  in  the  passing  of  the  bill  of  1849  which 
actually  established  the  Interior  Department. 

On  the  evening  of  December  16,  Webster  called  on 
the  President  for  the  purpose,  among  other  things,  of 
obtaining  from  Adams  his  ideas.  The  President,  like 
Clay,  was  in  doubt  about  the  attitude  of  Congress 
toward  any  such  measure.  From  his  record  of  the 
interview  with  Webster  the  reader  may  obtain  a  clear 
impression  of  his  thought. 

I  said  [wrote  Adams],  if  it  was  possible  in  any  manner  to 
obtain  this  from  Congress  it  must  be  by  a  very  short  Act, 
expressing  in  very  general  terms  the  objects  committed  to  it — 
the  internal  correspondence,  the  roads  and  canals,  the  Indians 
and  the  Patent  Office.  I  referred  him  to  the  papers  of  Judge 
Woodward  on  a  Home  Department  in  the  National  Journal, 
but  observed  that  was  a  plan  upon  a  scale  much  too  large  for 
the  approbation  of  Congress,  to  begin  with.  I  have  indeed 
no  expectation  of  success  with  this  Congress  for  any  such 
establishment  even  upon  the  simplest  plan.36 

35  Memoirs,  VII,  83;   Register  of  Delates,  19  Cong.,  I  sess.   (1825- 
1826),  p.  797. 

36  Memoirs,  VII,  83-84. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  INTERIOR    271 

The  interview  was  apparently  only  the  starting- 
point  in  the  search  for  information.  In  the  following 
January  Webster  addressed  a  letter  on  the  subject  to 
the  four  heads  of  departments,  Clay,  Rush,  Barbour, 
and  Southard.  For  some  unknown  reason  Wirt,  the 
Attorney-General,  was  ignored.  Clay  gave  careful  con- 
sideration to  the  letter,  then  answered  it  at  length, 
approving  the  general  plan  and  stating  reasons  why  a 
Home  Department  seemed  to  him  necessary.  Rush 
declared  himself  too  inexperienced  in  the  business  of 
the  Treasury  Department  to  have  any  decided  opinion 
to  offer.  Barbour  acknowledged  that  he  would  be  glad 
to  have  pensions  and  Indian  affairs  off  his  shoulders  as 
Secretary  of  War.  Southard  found  his  tasks  as  Secre- 
tary of  the  Navy  not  specially  burdensome.37 

That  a  bill  was  not  only  contemplated,  but  was 
actually  in  course  of  formulation  at  the  time,  would 
appear  from  Adams 's  reference  on  January  24  to  "  the 
proposed  bill  for  the  establishment  of  a  Home  Depart- 
ment, "  for  the  President  added  that  "the  duties  to  be 
assigned  to  it  will  be  taken  almost  entirely  from  the 
Departments  of  State  and  of  War. ' >38  But  the  evidence 
after  this  on  the  progress  of  the  matter  is  scant.  It  is 
certain  that  no  definite  action  on  the  subject  was  taken 
by  Congress  in  1826,  although  on  May  22,  the  last  day 
of  the  session,  a  report  was  made  to  the  House  and  was 
placed  on  file.39  The  subject  seems  never  again  during 

37  Senate  Documents,  21  Cong.,  1  sess.   (1829-1830),  vol.  II,  No.  109, 
pp.  13.       Here  will  be  found  the  correspondence. 

38  Memoirs,  VII,  109. 

39  Printed  in  Senate  Documents,  21  Cong.,  1  sess.  (1829-1830),  vol.  II, 
No.  309.     The  Report  omits  the  text  of  a  bill  in  a  way  which  leads  one! 


272  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Adams's  term  to  have  come  before  Congress.  But 
Adams  did  not  forget  it,  for  as  late  as  1839,  in  a  paper 
read  before  the  New  York  Historical  Society  on  "The 
Jubilee  of  the  Constitution/'  he  then  deplored  the 
absence  of  a  Home  Department. 40 

President  Jackson,  like  his  predecessor,  Adams,  was 
impressed  by  the  justness  of  Madison's  plea  for  an 
additional  executive  department.  He  gave  the  subject 
brief  consideration  in  his  first  annual  message  of 
December,  1829.  The  State  Department  had  from  an 
early  period,  as  he  remarked,  been  overburdened  with 
business  owing  to  many  complications  in  our  foreign 
relations.  These  relations,  moreover,  had  been  very 
much  extended  because  of  large  additions  made  to  the 
number  of  independent  nations.  The  remedy  pro- 
posed, the  establishment  of  a  Home  Department,  had 
not  met  favorable  attention  from  Congress  "on  account 
of  its  supposed  tendency  to  increase  gradually  and 
imperceptibly,  the  already  too  strong  bias  of  the 
federal  system  toward  the  exercise  of  authority  not 
delegated  to  it."  Accordingly,  in  view  of  the  popular 
expression  of  opposition,  he  was  himself  disinclined  to 
revive  the  old  recommendation.  Appreciating,  how- 
ever, the  importance  of  somehow  relieving  the  Secre- 
tary of  State  of  larger  burdens,  he  ventured  to  call  the 
attention  of  Congress  to  the  problem.41 

to  think  that  somehow  the  text  might  have  been  lost  before  the  Beport 
was  printed. 

4°  The  Jubilee  of  the  Constitution,  A  Discourse  delivered  at  the  request 
of  the  New  York  Historical  Society,  in  the  City  of  New  York,  on 
Tuesday,  the  30th  of  April,  1839  (New  York:  1839),  p.  77. 

41  Messages  and  Papers,  II,  461-462. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  INTERIOR    273 

Congress  was  inclined  to  respond  to  the  suggestion. 
They  endeavored  to  reorganize  the  office  of  the  Attor- 
ney-General— a  matter  that  Jackson  considered  of 
paramount  importance — and  carried  out  some  slight 
alterations  in  that  office  during  the  spring  of  1830.42 
The  debates  on  the  matter  in  the  Senate  show  clearly 
that  Webster,  Eowan  of  Kentucky,  and  Barton  of  Mis- 
souri all  favored  a  Home  Department.  One  thing  was 
perfectly  obvious  at  this  time:  the  incongruity  in 
having  Indian  affairs  under  the  Secretary  of  War,  the 
Patent  Office  in  the  State  Department,  and  a  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  who  was  obliged  by  law  to  consider 
and  decide  innumerable  problems  connected  with  the 
public  lands.43 

Just  before  his  retirement  from  the  Presidency 
Jackson  put  himself  on  record  regarding  the  pros- 
perous condition  of  the  executive  departments,  refer- 
ring to  the  ability  and  integrity  with  which  these 
departments  had  been  conducted.44  Somehow  Jack- 
son's principal  officers,  it  would  seem,  got  on  very 
well  without  a  Home  Department.  But  the  topic  of  a 
Home  Department  cropped  up  in  the  newspapers  occa- 
sionally after  Jackson's  term,  for  administrative 
burdens  were  constantly  increasing  and  seemed  to 

42  See  supra,  chapter  VII,  p.  173. 

«  Register  of  Debates  (1829-1830),  vol.  VI,  Pt.  I,  pp.  276,  323-324.  A 
text -book  of  the  time  remarked:  "It  is  the  opinion  of  many  intelligent 
persons,  that  the  labors  of  conducting  the  government  could  be  more 
easily  and  correctly  performed  by  the  establishment  of  a  Home  Depart- 
ment  "  William  Sullivan,  The  Political  Class  Book  (Boston: 

1831),  p.  90. 

**  Messages  and  Papers,  III,  259. 


274  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

demand  more  careful  differentiation  than  they  had  yet 
received.45 

IV 

President  Polk  followed  Jackson's  lead  in  more  ways 
than  one.  Like  Jackson  he  called  attention  in  his  first 
annual  message  of  December,  1845,  to  the  necessity  of 
relieving  the  executive  departments  by  redistributing 
various  duties  among  them.  The  administrative 
organizations  seemed  to  him  in  many  places  to  be  out  of 
joint.  He  commented  especially  on  the  duties  of  a 
domestic  nature  which  rested  on  the  shoulders  of  the 
Secretary  of  State,  and  suggested  that  the  Patent  Office 
might  well  be  transferred  to  the  office  of  the  Attorney- 
General.  The  tone  of  the  recommendations  was  not 
robust  and  strong.  The  recommendations  sounded  as 
though  Polk  himself  doubted  whether,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances of  trouble  with  Mexico  over  the  Texas 
situation,  Congress  would  be  inclined  to  undertake 
measures  of  administrative  reform.46  No  such  meas- 
ures at  any  rate  were  undertaken,  for  the  war  with 
Mexico  soon  absorbed  attention  and  concentrated  con- 
gressional effort  on  other  matters.  Yet  the  results  of 
the  war — particularly  the  acquisition  of  territory  from 
Mexico — and  the  control  of  the  Oregon  country  as  the 
outcome  of  the  treaty  of  1846,  were  largely  respon- 
sible for  the  ultimate  attainment  of  a  new  department 
in  1849. 

45  National  Intelligencer,  October  21,  December  8,  1841.     The  Cin- 
cinnati Gazette   about  this   time  was   vigorous   in  its   approval   of  the 
project  for  a  Home  Department. 

46  Messages  and  Papers,  IV,  414. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  INTERIOR    275 

Folk's  Cabinet  was  carefully  selected.  It  contained 
several  men  of  marked  ability:  James  Buchanan  was 
Secretary  of  State;  William  L.  Marcy  was  Secretary 
of  War;  and  Robert  J.  Walker  was  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury.  It  was  Walker  who  was  largely  responsible 
for  arousing  Congress  to  an  appreciation  of  the  vital 
need  for  the  act,  on  the  basis  of  which  the  Department 
of  the  Interior  was  organized  in  March,  1849. 

Born  in  1801  and  educated  in  Pennsylvania,  Robert 
J.  Walker,  while  a  young  man,  moved  to  Natchez,  Mis- 
sissippi, and  there  allied  himself  to  some  extent  to 
southern  interests.  A  lawyer  by  profession,  he  showed 
from  early  manhood  a  vigorous  interest  in  politics  and 
gained  a  leading  position  in  advocating  the  candidacy 
of  Andrew  Jackson  for  the  Presidency.  Like  Jackson 
he  opposed  nullification  and  the  re-chartering  of  the 
United  States  Bank.  He  favored  the  Independent 
Treasury  system.  Although  an  owner  of  slaves,  he 
could  not  approve  many  features  of  the  slavery 
regime.  Entering  the  national  Senate  from  Missis- 
sippi at  about  the  age  of  thirty-five,  he  was  soon  made 
chairman  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Public  Lands 
and  engaged  actively  in  the  work  of  lawmaking.  He 
was  an  indefatigable  expansionist,  first  favoring  the 
recognition  of  the  independence  of  the  Texas  republic, 
and  later,  in  1844,  arguing  for  its  annexation  to  the 
United  States.  His  fellow-citizens  of  Mississippi 
marked  him  as  their  choice  for  the  Vice-Presidency  in 
the  campaign  of  1844.  His  selection  the  next  year  by 
President  Polk  as  head  of  the  Treasury  Department 
fostered  ability  already  apparent  and  gave  him  new 


276  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

and  unexpected  opportunities  to  reveal  unusual  powers 
in  constructive  statesmanship.  His  first  report  as 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  raised  a  storm  of  debate 
and  led  to  the  so-called  Walker  Tariff  Act  of  1846,  of 
which  he  was  in  reality  the  f  ramer.  During  his  later 
life  he  acted  for  a  brief  time  (1857)  as  governor  of 
Kansas,  then  in  a  condition  of  turmoil.  When  the  war 
broke  out  between  the  states  in  1861,  Walker  stood 
loyally  by  Lincoln's  administration  and  worked  for  it. 
He  was  for  a  time  employed  by  the  federal  govern- 
ment as  financial  agent  and  expert  on  business  that 
took  him  to  Europe  where  he  was  able  to  negotiate 
some  heavy  loans  for  the  Union  cause.  He  died  in 
Washington,  in  November,  1869.47 

On  December  9, 1848,  after  serving  nearly  four  years 
at  the  head  of  the  Treasury  Department,  Walker  was 
moved  to  make  certain  definite  recommendations  to 
Congress  in  his  last  annual  report,  for  the  purpose  not 
only  of  relieving  the  Treasury  Department  from  bur- 
dens, but  also  of  altering  the  administrative  organiza- 
tion in  such  a  manner  as  ultimately  to  promote — as  he 
explained — the  interests  of  the  American  people.  His 
report  was  dated  four  days  later  than  Folk's  last 
annual  message.  There  was  a  patriotic  note  in 
Walker's  suggestions  that  could  not  have  escaped  even 
a  casual  reader.  Indeed  it  seems  fair  to  assume  that 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  considered  the  report  as 
his  valedictory  word  to  the  American  people,  deliv- 
47  Democratic  Review  (February,  1845),  XVI,  157-164;  Green  Bag, 
XV,  101-106;  American  Historical  Review,  X,  357;  Appleton,  Cyclopaedia 
of  American  Biography,  VI,  329;  Taussig,  Tariff  History,  5th  ed.,  p.  114. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  INTERIOR    277 

ered,  as  it  was,  from  a  position  of  marked  prominence. 
His  suggestions  on  administrative  organization  are 
worthy  of  careful  attention,  for  behind  them  were  ripe 
experience  and  association  with  men  and  measures  of 
a  momentous  epoch.  Inevitably  they  reflected  the 
administrative  deficiencies  of  an  earlier  time. 

At  the  outset  of  his  suggestions  Walker  was  perhaps 
unduly  deferential  to  the  supposed  wisdom  of  Con- 
gress in  respect  to  any  action  that  that  body  might  be 
inclined  to  take.  However,  he  began  his  considera- 
tions by  asserting  that  the  Treasury  organization  was 
defective  and  that  its  deficiencies  made  it  peculiarly 
burdensome  to  any  man  at  its  head.  In  his  view  there 
was  real  danger  lest  the  department  might  be  broken 
down  by  the  very  weight  of  its  own  machinery. 

Its  varied  and  important  duties  [he  declared] ,  with  the  rapid 
increase  of  our  area,  business  and  population,  can  scarcely 
be  all  promptly  and  properly  performed  by  any  one  secre- 
tary. Yet  in  detaching  any  of  its  duties  from  this  depart- 
ment, the  greatest  care  must  be  taken  not  to  impair  the  unity, 
simplicity,  and  efficiency  of  the  system  ....  there  are 
important  public  duties  having  no  necessary  connexion  with 
commerce  or  finance,  that  could  be  most  advantageously 
separated  from  the  treasury,  and  devolved  upon  a  new 
department 48 

This  comment  led  Walker  to  the  presentation  of  a 
positive  plan  for  the  new  department  which  should  be 
placed  under  a  "head" — "to  be  called  the  Secretary 
of  the  Interior,  inasmuch  as  his  duties  would  be  con- 

48 Executive  Documents,  30  Cong.,  2  sess.  (1848-1849),  II,  Doc.  7, 
p.  35. 


278  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

nected  with  those  branches  of  the  public  service  .... 
associated  with  our  domestic  affairs.  The  duties  of 
this  new  department  ....  would  be  great  and  impor- 
tant, fully  equal  to  those  appertaining  to  the  head  of 
any  other  department  except  the  treasury " 

In  Walker 's  plan  there  were  five  definite  proposi- 
tions, all  of  which  were  involved  later  in  the  act  of 
1849.  In  the  new  department  he  would  place,  first,  the 
work  of  the  General  Land  Office.  Second,  he  would 
relieve  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  sundry  duties 
of  supervision  which  had  no  necessary  connection  with 
finance,  but  were  concerned  with  the  expenses  of  the 
courts  of  the  United  States.  Third,  Indian  affairs 
should  have  a  place  in  the  new  department.  Fourth, 
the  Patent  Office,  taken  from  the  supervision  of  the 
State  Department,  should  come  under  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior.  Finally,  the  Pension  Office,  a  burden  to 
the  War  Department,  should  also  find  a  place  under 
the  new  official. 

On  the  subject  of  the  Land  Office,  Walker  was 
especially  detailed  and  informing.  "The  business  of 
the  Land  Office, "  he  wrote,  "  occupies  a  very  large 
portion  of  the  time  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
every  day,  and  his  duties  connected  therewith  must  be 
greatly  increased  by  the  accession  of  our  immense 
domain  in  Oregon,  New  Mexico,  and  California, 
especially  in  connexion  with  their  valuable  mineral 
lands,  their  private  land  claims,  and  conflicting  titles. 
From  all  decisions  of  the  Commissioner  .  .  .  .  ,"  he 
continued,  "an  appeal  lies  to  the  Secretary  of  the 

49  Executive  Documents,  op.  cit.,  p.  37. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  INTERIOR    279 

Treasury. ' '  Then  he  added  this  comment  from  his  own 
experience : 

I  have  pronounced  judgment  in  upwards  of  five  thousand 
cases,  involving  land  titles,  since  the  tenth  of  March,  1845. 
These  are  generally  judicial  questions  ....  requiring  often 
great  labor  and  research,  and  having  no  necessary  connexion 
with  the  duties  of  the  Treasury  Department.50 

Indian  affairs  called  forth  this  statement: 

The  duties  now  performed  by  the  Commissioner  of  Indian 
Affairs  are  most  numerous  ....  and  must  be  vastly 
increased  with  the  great  number  of  tribes  scattered  over 

Texas,    Oregon,   New   Mexico,    and   California These 

duties  do  not  necessarily  appertain  to  war,  but  to  peace,  and 

to  our  domestic  relations  with  those  tribes This  most 

important  bureau,  then,  should  be  detached  from  the  War 
Department,  with  which  it  has  no  necessary  connexion.51 

About  two  months  after  Walker's  report  had 
appeared,  Samuel  F.  Vinton  of  Ohio,  a  leading  Whig 
and  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  in 
the  House,  presented  a  bill  approved  by  his  committee 
for  the  purpose  of  organizing  a  Department  of  the 
Interior.52  Vinton  promptly  acknowledged  that  it  had 
been  prepared  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  at  the 
special  request  of  the  committee.  "The  bill,"  he 
declared,  "with  one  or  two  unimportant  alterations 
....  was  the  bill  as  it  came  from  the  hands  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury."  Some  time  during  the  pre- 
vious month  of  January  it  appeared  that  Vinton  had 

50  Ibid.,  p.  35. 
61  Ibid.,  p.  36. 
52  February  12,  1849. 


280  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

visited  Walker  and  had  then  urgently  requested  him  to 
prepare  a  bill.53 

This  notable  origin  of  the  measure  aroused  not  a 
word  of  comment  in  the  debates  in  the  House.  One  of 
the  less  conspicuous  Senators,  however,  was  moved  to 
remark  that  it  should  have  been  1 1  a  cabinet  measure. ' ' 
Lack  of  co-operation  on  the  part  of  the  other  principal 
officers  tended  in  his  opinion  to  condemn  it.54 

The  House  showed  some  opposition  to  the  bill. 
Howell  Cobb  of  Georgia,  in  the  lead  of  the  hostile 
elements,  gave  three  reasons  for  opposing  the  bill.  He 
dwelt  at  some  length  on  the  fact  that  no  preceding 
Congress  had  ever  been  willing  to  sanction  such  a 
measure.  He  showed  that  a  new  department  would 
increase  considerably  the  federal  patronage.  More- 
over, it  was  certain,  he  argued,  to  add i  i  another  cabinet 
officer  to  the  Government/'55  But  Cobb  and  his  fol- 
lowers failed  to  convince.  On  February  15  the  bill 
passed  the  House  by  one  hundred  and  twelve  yeas  to 
seventy-eight  nays.56  This  step  had  hardly  been  accom- 
plished when  John  G.  Palfrey  of  Massachusetts,  the 
historian,  moved  to  amend  the  title  by  striking  out 
"  Department  of  the  Interior "  and  substituting  for  it 
"Home  Department. "57  This  suggestion  of  Palfrey, 
truly  doctrinaire  in  view  of  the  fact  that  there  was  no 
reference  in  the  text  of  the  bill  to  anything  but  a 
Department  of  the  Interior,  fixed  the  title  in  law  with 

53  Congressional  Globe,  30  Cong.,  2  sess.  (1848-1849),  XX,  514. 
54JZnd,  p.  687.    Allen  of  Ohio,  March  3. 
55  Ibid.,  p.  516. 
56J6wZ.,  p.  543. 
57  Ibid.,  p.  544. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  INTERIOR    281 

an  incongruity  that  did  not  escape  later  comment. 
Both  Ewing  and  Stuart,  first  and  third  Secretaries  of 
the  Interior,  referred  to  the  matter.58 

The  Senate  discussions  over  the  bill  were  vigorous 
and  at  times  acrid.  They  were  confined,  however,  to 
a  single  day  and  evening  session,  for  the  bill  was  not 
reported  by  Senator  B.  M.  T.  Hunter  of  Virginia  until 
March  3,  the  last  day  of  the  Thirtieth  Congress. 
Hunter  was  mild  in  his  opposition  by  comparison  with 
his  colleague,  Senator  James  M.  Mason,  grandson  of 
Colonel  George  Mason,  member  of  the  Philadelphia 
Convention  of  1787.  Mason  made  quite  the  most  bitter 
protest  against  the  bill  that  the  record  of  debate 
shows ;  and  he  was  seconded  in  his  position  by  John  C. 
Calhoun.  The  leaders  of  the  small  Senate  majority 
that  favored  the  measure  were  Daniel  Webster  of 
Massachusetts  and  Jefferson  Davis  of  Mississippi. 
Both  these  men  argued  ably  and  well.  The  bill  passed 
the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  thirty-one  yeas  to  twenty-five 
nays.59 

The  particular  note  sounded  by  the  Senate  opposi- 
tion at  different  times  in  the  course  of  the  debate  was 
first  suggested  by  Hunter.60  It  was  not  a  new  note,  for 
Jackson's  quick  ear  had  detected  it  as  far  back  as 
1829,  and  it  was  probably  even  then  well  known.  It 
was  the  expression  of  fear  of  any  tendency  that 
seemed  likely  to  increase,  however  imperceptibly,  the 
bias  of  the  federal  system  toward  authority  not  clearly 
delegated.  The  proposal  in  1849  to  create  a  new 

58  See  Note  2  at  the  end  of  this  chapter. 

59  Globe,  30  Cong.,  2  sess.,  p.  680. 

60  Ibid.,  pp.  670  ff. 


282  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

department — even  though  the  move  was  really  scarcely 
more  than  a  readjustment  of  existing  organization — 
aroused  this  fear  in  a  manner  not  easy  to  understand. 
The  fear  was  expressed  in  some  variety  of  ways. 
"Mr.  President, "  exclaimed  Calhoun,  "there  is  some- 
thing ominous  in  the  expression,  '  The  Secretary  of  the 
Interior/  This  Government  ....  was  made  to  take 
charge  of  the  exterior  relations  of  the  States.  And 
if  there  had  been  no  exterior  relations,  the  Federal 

Government  would  never  have  existed Sir,  the 

name  *  Interior  Department'  itself  indicates  a  great 

change  in  the  public  mind Everything  upon  the 

face  of  God's  earth  will  go  into  the  Home  Depart- 
ment. "61  Senator  Niles  of  Connecticut  felt  that  "the 
whole  tendency  of  this  Government  is  ....  to  foster 
and  enlarge  the  executive  power  which  is  becoming  a 
maelstrom  to  swallow  up  all  the  power  of  the  Govern- 
ment. "62 

To  Senator  Mason  the  bill  for  the  new  department 
seemed  a  project  destined  to  place  industrial  pursuits 
and  other  interior  concerns  under  the  management  of 
the  general  government.  He  could  not  avoid  the  sec- 
tional note : 

Are  we  to  increase  this  central  power?  More  especially  are 
we  who  belong  to  the  South — who  have  very  little  more 
interest  in  this  country  than  to  have  the  protection  of  our 
independence  with  the  other  States;  from  whom  a  great  part 
of  the  revenue  is  drawn,  and  to  whom  very  little  of  it  is 
returned ;  who  pay  everything  to  Federal  power,  and  receive 
nothing  for  it 

si  Globe,  30  Cong.,  2  sess.,  p.  672. 
p.  671, 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  INTERIOR    283 

A  little  further  along  he  declared : 

We  have  yet  some  hope,  although  it  may  be  impaired  by  the 
experience  of  every  day,  that  the  State  organizations  will  yet 
outlive  the  overshadowing  influence  of  this  Federal  Govern- 
ment.63 

Into  this  confusion  of  thought  and  juggling  with 
words  there  came  the  clearer  ideas  of  such  men  as 
Webster  and  Davis.  "Why  call  this  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior  ?"  asked  Webster  in  response  to  Cal- 
houn's  rhetoric  about  a  title.  "The  impression  seems 
to  be  that  we  are  going  to  carry  the  power  of  the  Gov- 
ernment further  into  the  interior I  do  not  so 

understand  it.  Where  is  the  power?  It  is  only  that 
certain  powers  heretofore  exercised  by  certain  agents 
are  to  be  exercised  by  other  agents.  That  is  the  whole 
of  it."1  To  Webster,  grown  old  in  active  efforts  for 
his  country's  welfare,  his  mind  filled  with  recollections 
of  the  past,  the  historic  aspect  of  the  measure  must 
have  been  deeply  significant.  "As  far  back  as  the  time 
of  Mr.  Monroe, ' '  he  said,  '  *  and  up  to  this  time,  persons 
most  skilled  and  of  the  most  experience  in  the  admin- 
istration of  this  Government,  have  recommended  the 

creation  of  some  other  department Gentlemen 

can  remember  what  ....  Mr.  Madison  said  on  that 
subject."  Then,  in  another  vein,  he  added: 

It  is  said,  but  not  very  conclusively,  that  we  create  offices 

from  time  to  time,   and  make  additions  to  salaries 

Well,  the  country  is  increasing;  the  business  of  the  Govern- 
ment is  increasing ;  there  is  a  great  deal  more  work  to  be 
done This  bill  may  not  be  perfect But  the 

.,  p.  672. 
d.,  p.  677. 


284  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

popular  branch,  of  the  Legislature  has  passed  it.  It  is  here. 
It  is  my  opinion  that  there  is  a  general  sense  in  the  country 
that  some  such  provision  is  necessary.65 

Jefferson  Davis  was  not  forgetful  of  the  force  of  an 
appeal  to  the  past.  He  reminded  Ms  fellow  Senators 
that  several  of  the  great  Virginian  Presidents  were 
believers  in  the  ideal  of  the  bill.  But  perhaps  his  par- 
ticular contribution  to  the  debate  was  his  reference  in 
the  following  passage  to  the  import  of  the  bill  to  the 
"new  States, "  among  which  Mississippi  was  at  this 
time  reckoned.  "I  feel  a  very  peculiar  interest  in 
this  measure, "  he  asserted,  "as  every  one  who  comes 
from  a  new  State  must  feel. ' '  Then  he  said : 

We  are  peopling  the  public  lands;  the  inhabitants  of  the  old 
States  are  the  people  of  commerce.  The  Treasury  belongs  to 
us  in  common.  The  Secretaries  of  the  Treasury  must  be  taken 
from  those  portions  of  the  country  where  they  have  foreign 
commerce,  and  therefore  they  are  men  who  are  not  so  inti- 
mately connected  and  acquainted  with  the  relations  and 
interests  of  the  public  lands  in  the  new  States.66 

The  implication  was  obvious  that  the  interests  of  the 
new  and  the  inland  states  were  likely  to  be  better 
guarded  if  the  new  department  could  be  established. 

To  several  Democrats  the  fact  that  a  new  cabinet 
officer  would  have  to  be  appointed  was  a  disturbing 
thought.  "We  are  assuming  that  those  who  are  to 
succeed  us  require  more  advisers  than  we  have  had; 
we  are  doing  that  thing  which  they  ought  to  do,  if  they 
think  it  is  required.''67 

65  Globe,  30  Cong.,  2  sess.,  p.  671. 

66  Ibid.,  pp.  669-670. 

p.  670. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  INTERIOR    285 

To  the  reader  of  the  debates  of  1849  the  balance  of 
argument  seems  strongly  in  favor  of  the  measure.  So 
thought  the  majority  in  both  Senate  and  House.  Late 
on  the  night  of  March  3  the  bill  was  presented  to 
President  Polk  for  his  signature.  It  was  a  long  bill — 
too  long  to  have  received  any  very  careful  considera- 
tion from  Polk  during  these  last  hours  of  his  Presi- 
dency. "I  had  serious  objections  to  it,"  wrote  Polk 
several  weeks  later  in  his  Diary,  "but  they  were  not 
of  a  constitutional  character  and  I  signed  it  with  reluc- 
tance. I  fear  its  consolidating  tendency.  I  apprehend 
its  practical  operation  will  be  to  draw  power  from  the 
states,  where  the  Constitution  has  reserved  it,  and  to 
extend  the  jurisdiction  and  power  of  the  U.  S.  by 
construction  to  an  unwarrantable  extent.  Had  I  been 
a  member  of  Congress  I  would  have  voted  against  it. ' ' 

In  Polk's  eyes  the  measure  was  inexpedient.  It  is 
altogether  probable  that,  had  he  had  more  time,  he 
would  have  vetoed  it.68  But  fortunately  the  long 
struggle  ended  as  it  did.  Three  days  later,  on  March 
6,  President  Taylor  sent  to  the  Senate  the  name  of 
Thomas  Ewing  of  Ohio  as  first  Secretary  of  the 
Interior.  On  March  8  Ewing,  duly  commissioned, 
entered  upon  his  duties,  taking  his  place  as  seventh 
member  of  the  Cabinet. 


The  plan  of  an  Interior  Department  in  1848-1849 
was  essentially  a  Democratic  measure  in  its  source.  It 
was  the  direct  result  of  the  pressure  of  administrative 

68  The  Diary  of  James  K.  Polk  during  his  Presidency,  IV,  371-372. 


286  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

burdens.  There  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  general 
opinion  outside  administrative  or  congressional  circles 
had  anything  whatever  to  do  with  it.  It  was  certainly 
not  the  outcome  of  widespread  demand  or  popular 
pressure. 

The  establishment  of  the  department  was  mainly 
dependent  upon  a  House  of  Representatives  contain- 
ing a  small  Whig  majority  (one  hundred  and  seventeen 
Whigs  and  one  hundred  and  eleven  Democrats)  and 
upon  a  Democratic  Senate  (thirty-six  Democrats  and 
twenty-two  Whigs).69  Circumstances  and  a  few  clear- 
headed men  happily  combined  to  enforce  its  need.  The 
war  with  Mexico  was  over  and  settled.  The  new 
regions  added  to  the  national  domain  during  Folk's 
term  had  increased  or  were  likely  to  increase  the  bur- 
dens of  administration  to  such  an  extent  as  to  make 
the  demand  for  a  new  administrative  official  and  organ- 
ization imperative.70  The  official,  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  Department,  was  conceived  of  as  one  who 
would  naturally  assume  the  rank  and  position  of  a 
cabinet  member.  His  department  was  bound  to 
increase  the  range  of  the  federal  patronage.  Knowl- 
edge of  these  facts  served  inevitably  in  Congress  to 
smooth  the  way  of  the  measure  among  Whig  partisans, 
for  Taylor  was  about  to  take  office  as  a  Whig  President 
in  succession  to  a  Democratic  regime.  Much  was  to  be 
said  in  favor  of  the  intrinsic  merits  of  the  plan.  It 
would  provide,  as  Webster  pointed  out,  a  necessary 
organization.  The  action  of  the  Ways  and  Means 

69  Globe,  30  Cong.,  2  sess.,  p.  516. 

70  See  Note  3  at  the  end  of  this  chapter. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  INTERIOR    287 

Committee,  together  with  the  vote  on  the  bill  in  the 
House,  afforded  some  evidence  that  the  public  was 
ready  to  approve  such  a  readjustment  of  administra- 
tive work  as  would  facilitate  the  tasks  of  the  federal 
government  which  were  growing  year  by  year  more 
numerous  and  more  complicated. 

Though  familiar  to  public  men  since  the  foundation 
period  of  the  Constitution,  and  advocated  more  or  less 
forcibly  by  such  characters  as  Madison,  Monroe,  John 
Quincy  Adams,  and  Andrew  Jackson,  the  idea  of  a 
Department  of  the  Interior  was  newly  conceived  and 
clearly  formulated  by  an  experienced  and  public- 
spirited  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  from  Mississippi. 
For  the  plan  of  organization  Robert  J.  Walker  has 
never  received  from  any  historian  the  credit  that  is 
his  just  due.71  He  voiced  the  need  and  launched  the 
project  more  carefully  than  any  statesman  before  him. 
But  it  must  not  be  overlooked  that  his  plan  was  skil- 
fully and  ably  supported  in  a  doubting  Senate  by  two 
such  leaders  as  Daniel  Webster  and  Jefferson  Davis. 

71  But  see  Schouler,  History  of  the  United  States,  V,  121. 


NOTES 

1.    JUDGE  AUGUSTUS  B.  WOODWAED  (c.  1775-1827) : 

Attention  has  already  been  called  in  Chapter  VI  to 
Judge  Woodward's  pamphlet  of  1809  entitled  Con- 
siderations on  the  Executive  Government  of  the  United 
States  of  America  (Flatbush,  N.  Y.,  pp.  87).  In  1824 
Woodward  was  again  writing  on  various  phases  of 
administrative  work  and  taking  a  particular  interest 
in  the  project  for  a  Home  Department — a  subject,  it 
should  be  said,  which  was  not  even  mentioned  in  his 
pamphlet  of  1809.  Articles  of  his  which  I  have 
observed  will  be  found  in  the  files  of  the  National 
Journal  of  Washington,  D.  C.,  as  follows : 

April  24,  1824.  "On  the  Necessity  and  Importance  of  a 
Department  of  Domestic  Affairs,  in  the  Government  of 
the  United  States." 

May  29.  ' '  On  the  Distribution  of  the  Bureaux  in  a  Depart- 
ment of  Foreign  Affairs :  Supplementary  to  the  discussion 
on  the  necessity  and  importance  of  a  Department  of 
Domestic  Affairs " 

May  27  to  August  31.  At  intervals  between  these  dates  there 
appeared  about  a  dozen  articles  on  The  Presidency. 
These,  together  with  the  two  foregoing  articles,  were 
collected  and  printed  in  the  form  of  a  pamphlet  entitled : 
The  Presidency  of  the  United  States,  by  A.  B.  Wood- 
ward (New  York:  1825,  pp.  88).  The  copyright  date  of 
this  rare  pamphlet  was  May  21,  1825. 

April  9, 1825.  Letter  from  Willie  Blount  to  Judge  Woodward 
of  Florida,  dated  March  14,  1825,  approving  Wood- 
ward 's  plan  of  a  Department  of  Domestic  Affairs.  Wood- 
ward's  reply. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  INTERIOR    289 

May  21.    Letter  of  Major  H.  Lee  to  Judge  Woodward,  dated 
April  14.    Woodward 's  reply. 

In  the  National  Intelligencer  of  Washington,  D.  C., 
of  April  23,  26,  and  28,  1825,  Woodward's  two  articles 
that  had  appeared  the  year  before  in  the  National 
Journal  of  April  24  and  May  29  were  reprinted  with  a 
brief  editorial  comment  on  April  28  in  favor  of  his 
plans.  In  general,  Woodward  was  opposed  to  what  he 
termed  the  * l  cabinet  system. ' '  His  writings,  however, 
do  not  leave  the  impression  that  he  had  any  very  defi- 
rJte  or  practical  substitute  to  offer  in  its  place.  In 
1824  he  was  appointed  federal  judge  for  the  W7est 
District  of  Florida  (National  Intelligencer,  February 
26,  1825).  The  probable  year  of  his  death  is  given  as 
1827  in  Appleton's  Cyclopaedia  of  American  Biog- 
raphy, VI,  606.  He  appears  to  have  been  interested 
in  science  as  well  as  government.  Charles  Moore  has 
thrown  some  light  on  an  earlier  phase  of  Woodward's 
career  in  a  slight  sketch  entitled  Governor,  Judge,  and 
Priest:  Detroit,  1805-1815.  A  paper  read  before  the 
Witenagemote  on  Friday  evening,  October  the  Second, 
1891  (New  York:  pp.  24).  For  some  additional  in- 
formation about  Judge  Woodward,  see  T.  M.  Cooley's 
Michigan  (Amer.  Commonwealth  Series,  Boston :  1905), 
and  D.  Gr.  McCarty,  The  Territorial  'Governors  of  the 
Old  Northwest  (Iowa  City:  1910). 

2.       ACT  TO  ESTABLISH  A  ' '  HOME  DEPARTMENT  ' '  IN  1849  : 

The  first  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  Thomas  Ewing, 
in  his  Report  of  December  3,  1849,  wrote : 

The  department  is  named  in  the  title  ' '  A  Home  Department " ; 
but  the  body  of  the  act  provided  that  it  shall  be  called  ' '  The 


290  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Department  of  the  Interior. ' '  The  title  of  the  act,  being  the 
part  last  adopted  in  the  process  of  enactment,  is  believed  to 
express  the  intention  of  Congress  as  to  the  name 

Secretary  Alexander  H.  H.  Stuart  suggested,  in  Ms 
Eeport  of  December  2,  1850,  that  Congress  remove  the 
ambiguity.  But  nothing  was  done  until  the  revision  of 
the  statutes  in  1873,  when  the  department  was  properly 
entitled. 

In  respect  to  the  incongruity  between  the  title  and 
the  text  of  the  act  of  1849,  I  quote  from  a  personal 
letter  on  the  point  sent  to  me  under  date  of  April  13, 
1910,  by  Mr.  Middleton  Beaman,  then  librarian  of  the 
Law  Library  of  Congress  and  the  Supreme  Court : 

So  far  as  I  know,  the  title  of  the  act  of  1849  is  the  only 
instance  in  which  the  title  "Home  Department"  is  used  in 
legislation.  Examination  of  the  indexes  of  the  Statutes  at 
Large  from  1849  to  1873  discloses  numerous  instances  of  refer- 
ence to  this  department  as  the  "Interior  Department."  .  .  .  . 
The  title  of  the  original  act  cannot  govern  the  usage,  as  the 
body  of  the  act  expressly  declared  that  the  department  should 
be  called  ' '  The  Department  of  the  Interior. ' '  By  well  settled 
rules  of  statutory  construction  the  title  of  an  act  can  have  no 
weight  except  where  the  provisions  of  the  act  itself  are  ambigu- 
ous. I  therefore  am  of  opinion  that  the  official  designation  has 
always  been  "The  Department  of  the  Interior." 

3.     GROWTH  OF  THE  NATIONAL  DOMAIN  : 

The  extent  of  the  land  acquisitions  that  were  made 
to  the  United  States  in  Folk's  administration  will  be 
easily  understood  by  the  following  table,  taken  from 
Professor  T.  N.  Carver's  article,  "Historical  Sketch 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  THE  INTERIOR    291 

of  American  Agriculture/'  in  L.  H.  Bailey's  Cyclo- 
pedia of  American  Agriculture  (1907ff.),  IV,  50: 

1781-1802 :  Cessions  by  the  States      .  819,815  square  miles. 

1803 :  Louisiana  Purchase    .      .  877,268  " 

1805:  Oregon 225,948  " 

1812:  West  Florida       .      .      .  9,740  " 

1819:  Florida       .      .      .      .      .  54,240  " 

1845:  Texas 262,290  " 

1846:  Region  north  of  the  Co- 
lumbia River  ....  58,880  " 
1848:  California  and  New  Mexico  614,439  " 
1853:  Gadsden  Purchase      .      .  47,330  " 

It  should  be  noted  that  none  of  the  land  in  Texas 
belonged  to  the  public  domain,  and  that  much  of  the 
land  in  California  and  New  Mexico  had  been  granted 
to  private  individuals  before  these  regions  came  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States. 


CHAPTEE  XI 

ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE 

NEAR  the  close  of  Mr.  Cleveland's  first  term  of 
service  as  President,  almost  exactly  a  century 
after  the  government  was  inaugurated  under  Wash- 
ington, the  Secretaryship  of  Agriculture  was  estab- 
lished by  the  law  of  February  9,  1889.1  Reckoning 
from  1789,  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  was  the  sixth 
principal  officer  to  be  termed  Secretary.  The  depart- 
ment over  which  the  new  official  was  to  preside  was  the 
eighth  to  be  characterized  as  "  executive. "  Moreover, 
the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  was  the  eighth  member 
to  take  a  place  in  the  President's  Cabinet  Council, 

Since  1862  there  had  been  a  Department  of  Agri- 
culture over  which  there  had  been  an  officer  called  a 
Commissioner,  but  it  had  not  been  known  hitherto  as 
an  executive  department.  Its  activity,  however,  had 
been  steadily  extending  for  many  years,  so  that,  under 
the  rearrangements  of  1889  and  some  later  statutes, 
the  Department  was  seeking  the  remotest  regions  of 
the  earth  for  crops  suitable  to  the  areas  reclaimed  by 
the  government;  it  was  mapping  and  analyzing  soils, 
fostering  the  improvement  of  seeds  and  animals,  tell- 
ing the  farmer  when  and  how  and  what  to  plant,  and 
making  war  upon  diseases  of  plants,  animals  and 
insect  pests.2  From  its  origin  in  the  epoch  of  the  Civil 

1  25  Statutes  at  Large,  pp.  659  ff. 

2  Frederick  J.    Turner,    ' '  Social   Forces    in   American    History, ' '    in 
American  Historical  Review  (January,  1911),  XVI,  223. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     293 

War  it  was  designed  to  promote  the  welfare  of  the 
American  farmers,  the  industrial  class  on  which  the 
wealth  of  the  nation  inevitably  rested. 

It  would  be  misleading  to  cite  Hamilton's  view, 
expressed  in  December,  1787,  to  the  effect  that  the 
supervision  of  agriculture  could  never  become  one  of 
the  "desirable  cares  of  a  general  jurisdiction, "3  as  at 
all  widespread  or  generally  acceptable  at  that  time. 
Yet  we  may  be  sure  that  neither  Hamilton  nor  any 
one  of  his  great  contemporaries  could  have  appre- 
ciated the  influence  on  institutions  or  the  consequences 
of  the  westward  movement  of  population,  a  movement 
beginning  about  the  close  of  the  American  Revolution 
and  continuing  for  more  than  a  century,  until  the  West 
had  been  largely  colonized,  and  there  was  no  longer  any 
really  describable  frontier  line.  The  "westward- 
moving  tide  of  population "  which  has  been  character- 
ized as  "the  greatest  fact  in  American  history "4 
tended  to  affect  profoundly  the  whole  course  of 
domestic  federal  administration.  In  truth,  it  was  prob- 
ably the  most  fundamental  factor  among  many  that 
were  making  toward  the  establishment  of  a  national 
Department  of  Agriculture.  A  great  variety  of  cir- 
cumstances aroused  popular  interest  in  such  a  Depart- 
ment. Once  aroused  and  properly  directed  into  effec- 
tive channels,  this  interest  gained  more  or  less  capable 
direction  at  Washington,  and  finally  exacted  from 
somewhat  unwilling  and  preoccupied  legislators,  at  a 

3  The  Federalist  (ed.  Ford),  No.  17,  p.  104.    December  5,  1787. 

4  T.   N.    Carver,   ' '  Historical    Sketch  of   American   Agriculture, ' '  in 
L.  H.  Bailey's  Cyclopedia  of  American  Agriculture,  IV,  55. 


294  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

critical  moment  of  the  Civil  War,  the  desired  organiza- 
tion. 

At  the  outset  attention  should  be  called  to  two  lines 
of  effort,  both  of  which  had  a  perceptible  and  traceable 
influence  in  bringing  about  the  establishment  of  the 
Department  in  1862  and  the  Secretaryship  in  1889.  In 
the  first  place,  certain  statesmen — men  like  Washing- 
ton who  were  themselves  practically  interested  in 
problems  of  farming — were  apt  to  foresee  from  the 
latter  days  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  ultimate 
desirability  of  some  form  of  central  administrative 
organization,  called  variously  by  the  names  " Board," 
"Bureau,"  or  "Department,"  which  might  be  estab- 
lished at  the  seat  of  government  for  the  purpose  of 
representing,  understanding,  and  aiding  local  inter- 
ests in  farming.  As  time  advanced,  these  men  set 
themselves  to  work  definitely  for  the  object.  In  the 
second  place,  from  an  early  period  of  our  history  there 
were  to  be  found  local  or  state  Organizations  which 
were  designed  to  aid  and  foster  farming  interests. 
Many  circumstances  tended  to  bring  these  different 
organizations,  having  similar  aims,  into  co-operating 
groups  until  at  length  a  large  and  fairly  representa- 
tive agricultural  society  was  formed  which  made  one 
of  its  leading  aims  the  establishment  of  a  federal 
Department  of  Agriculture.  By  1840,  or  a  little  later, 
the  subject  was  given  new  significance  because  of  the 
widespread  feeling  that  a  proper  disposition  of  the 
public  lands  was  likely  to  have  a  marked  effect  in 
ameliorating  social  conditions.  And  this  feeling 
undoubtedly  had  its  influence,  both  in  and  outside 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     295 

Congress,  in  enforcing  the  need  of  various  legislative 
measures,  notably  those  for  a  federal  Department  of 
Agriculture  and  the  Homestead  Acts. 


During  the  colonial  period  King  and  Parliament 
had  occasionally,  but  in  rather  desultory  fashion, 
attempted  to  encourage  certain  kinds  of  agricultural 
industry.  This  accorded  well  with  the  theory  of  colon- 
ization, for  "the  essential  thing  was  that  the  colony 
produced  commodities  that  the  mother  country  would 
otherwise  have  to  buy  from  foreigners.  Hence  greater 
stress  was  laid  on  colonies  as  sources  of  supply,  than 
as  markets  for  British  manufactures.  "5  The  colonial 
legislatures  themselves,  appreciating  the  ideal,  some- 
times encouraged  such  industries  as  the  raising  of 
indigo,  mulberry  trees  for  silk  culture,  hemp,  flax,  and 
other  products  especially  desirable  to  the  home 
country.  In  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
when  England  became  interested  in  manufacturing  and 
was  passing  into  the  epoch  known  as  the  Industrial 
Eevolution,  it  was  still  the  ideal  that  the  colonies 
should  attend  to  agricultural  pursuits,  partly  as  a 
means  of  keeping  their  inhabitants  diverted  from 
manufacturing.  To  the  colonists  in  America  agricul- 
ture was  bound  to  be  a  most  precious  interest. 

In  the  latter  part  of  1789  President  Washington  was 
in  correspondence  with  a  certain  Baron  Pollnitz,  who 
seems  to  have  had  a  farm  for  experimental  purposes  in 
the  neighborhood  of  New  York.  In  the  early  part  of 

5  G.  L.  Beer,  British  Colonial  Policy,  1754-1765,  p.  135. 


296  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

the  next  year,  in  the  course  of  his  first  annual  message 
to  Congress,  Washington  referred  to  agriculture  as 
a  pursuit  that  should  be  encouraged  along  with  com- 
merce and  manufactures.6  Although  the  reference  to 
agriculture  was  rather  casual,  it  apparently  induced 
Pollnitz  to  commend  to  the  President's  attention  the 
subject  of  establishing  an  experimental  farm  under 
the  government's  patronage.  Washington  replied 
cautiously  to  the  suggestion,  saying : 

I  know  not  whether  I  can  with  propriety  do  any  thing  more 
at  present  than  what  I  have  already  done.  I  have  brought 
the  subject  in  my  speech  at  the  opening  of  the  present  session 
of  Congress  before  the  national  legislature.  It  rests  with 
them  to  decide  what  measures  ought  afterwards  to  be  adopted 
for  promoting  the  success  of  the  great  objects,  which  I  have 
recommended  to  their  attention.7 

After  eight  years  of  administrative  experience,  in 
his  last  annual  message,  Washington  once  more 
renewed  the  subject  and  recommended  a  central  estab- 
lishment or  board  of  agriculture.8  For  the  origin  of 
the  conception  of  something  akin  to  a  department, 
bureau  or  board  of  agriculture  in  the  United  States 
the  student  need  go  no  farther  back  than  to  the  clos- 
ing decade  of  the  eighteenth  century.  This  utterance 
of  President  Washington  on  the  subject  in  1796  is 
among  the  earliest  that  can  be  found.  The  idea 
behind  it  was  largely  the  outcome  of  certain  definite 
English  precedents. 

6  Messages  and  Papers,  I,  66. 

7  Sparks,    Writings  of  George   Washington,  X,  68,   81.     Letters   of 
December  29,  1789,  and  March  23,  1790. 

8  Messages  and  Papers,  I,  202. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     297 

In  1793,  through  the  indefatigable  efforts  of  Sir 
John  Sinclair,  a  young  Scotch  member  of  Parliament 
and  a  writer  on  agricultural  topics,  the  government  of 
Pitt  agreed  to  the  establishment  of  a  Board  of  Agri- 
culture. To  Arthur  Young,  Sinclair's  friend,  the  plan 
seemed  in  January,  1793,  to  be  preposterous.  "Pray, 
don't  give  Ministers  more  credit  than  they  deserve/' 
wrote  Young  to  Sinclair.  "In  manufactures  and  com- 
merce you  may  bet  securely;  but  they  never  did,  and 
never  will  do  any  thing  for  the  plough.  Your  Board 
of  Agriculture  will  be  in  the  moon ;  if  on  earth,  remem- 
ber I  am  to  be  secretary.  "9  About  the  middle  of  the 
following  May  the  plan,  perhaps  through  the  favoring 
influence  of  the  King  behind  it,  was  carried  through 
Parliament.  There  was  opposition.  Such  statesmen 
as  Hawkesbury,  Sheridan,  Grey,  and  Fox  felt  that  the 
measure  might  be  a  "job"  for  the  purpose  of  placing 
patronage  in  the  hands  of  the  government.10  But  on 
August  23  the  Board's  charter  was  sealed.  Sir  John 
Sinclair  was  made  president.  Arthur  Young,  in 
accordance  with  his  wish,  was  made  secretary.  The 
English  Board  of  Agriculture,  thus  established  in  1793, 
lasted  until  1817,  in  which  latter  year  the  government 
declined  to  make  further  appropriations  for  it. 

The  organization  of  the  English  Board  was  this :  It 
was  to  be  composed,  in  the  first  place,  of  certain  gov- 
ernment officials  and  a  number  of  lay  coadjutors. 
.This,  as  the  central  body,  sent  out  to  the  farmers  in  all 

9  The  Correspondence  of  the  Right  Honourable  Sir  John  Sinclair,  Bart. 
(2  vols.,  London:  1831),  I,  407. 

w  Parliamentary  History,  XXX,  949  ff.    May  15,  17,  1793. 


298  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

parts  of  England  lists  of  questions  to  be  answered. 
Some  competent  person  was  chosen  in  every  county, 
directed  to  draw  up  a  survey  of  agricultural  conditions 
there  and  to  return  it  to  the  Board.  Under  such  an 
arrangement  the  Board  was  enabled  to  appreciate  the 
needs  of  the  various  counties.  In  the  course  of  time, 
by  means  of  numerous  publications — called  "Com- 
munications" from  1802  to  1806 — the  central  Board 
furnished  much  information  to  the  farmers.  The 
information  was  of  a  kind  to  keep  them  in  touch  with 
foreign  improvements  and  give  to  them  the  means  of 
understanding  new  or  advanced  methods  of  agriculture. 
Moreover,  the  Board  provided  lectures  in  different 
places,  and  offered  prizes  for  essays  on  various  topics 
of  importance.  Account  was  taken  in  its  publications 
of  the  statistics  of  population — a  subject  that  was 
brought  into  prominence  by  the  anonymous  publication 
in  1798  of  Malthus  's  Essay  on  the  Principle  of  Popula- 
tion. When  this  first  English  Board  of  Agriculture 
went  out  of  existence  in  1817,  there  were  numerous 
local  organizations  which  were  competent  (if  not 
actually  designed)  to  carry  on  the  educational  work  so 
well  started.  Among  these  were  the  Smithfield  Club, 
the  Highland  Society,  and  the  Bath  and  West  of 
England  Agricultural  Society.11 

Sir  John  Sinclair  was  an  enthusiast  in  whatever  he 

11  Besides  references  already  cited,  I  have  used  in  these  paragraphs : 
E.  H.  Inglis  Palgrave,  Dictionary  of  Political  Economy  (1894ff.),  I? 
156-157.  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  LIT,  301-305.  Art.  "Sir 
John  Sinclair"  (1754-1835).  This  first  Board  is  not  to  be  confused 
with  the  present  Board  of  Agriculture  established  in  1889,  52  &  53  Viet., 
c.  30. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     299 

undertook  to  do.  He  was,  moreover,  an  indefatigable 
correspondent,  constantly  seeking  intimacies  with  men 
who,  he  had  reason  to  believe,  would  utilize  his  schemes 
or  extend  his  ideas.  With  President  Washington  and 
his  four  successors  Sinclair  carried  on  correspondence, 
much  of  which  has  been  preserved  and  rendered  easily 
accessible.  He  took  occasion  also  to  address  other 
well-known  and  influential  Americans,  among  them 
John  Jay,  Richard  Rush,  William  Pinkney,  Richard 
Peters,  Gouverneur  Morris,  and  Colonel  David  Hum- 
phreys, most  of  whom  had  special  interest  in  the  pro- 
motion of  agriculture.  He  was,  of  course,  very  much 
enlisted  in  the  work  of  the  English  Board  of  Agricul- 
ture, of  which  he  was  president,  first  from  1793  to  1798, 
and  again  from  1806  to  1813.  It  was  Sinclair  who 
brought  Washington  to  an  understanding  of  the  work 
of  the  English  Board.  He  was  influential,  likewise,  in 
inducing  Washington  to  insert  a  paragraph  regarding 
some  such  institution  for  the  United  States  into  his 
last  annual  message  to  Congress  in  1796. 

To  an  English  correspondent  Washington  wrote, 
under  date  of  July  15,  1797,  as  follows:  "I  have 
endeavored, "  he  said,  "both  in  a  public  and  private 
character  to  encourage  the  establishment  of  Boards  of 

Agriculture  in  this  country,  but  hitherto  in  vain 

Since  the  first  establishment  of  the  National  Board  of 
Agriculture  in  Great  Britain,  I  have  considered  it  as 
one  of  the  most  valuable  institutions  of  modern  times, 
and  conducted  with  so  much  ability  and  zeal  as  it 
appears  to  be  under  the  auspices  of  Sir  John  Sinclair, 


300  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

must  be  productive  of  great  advantage  to  the  Nation 
and  to  Mankind  in  General. ' n2 

In  1794  Washington,  who  had  then  been  in  corre- 
spondence with  Sinclair  for  about  two  years,  referred 
in  an  interested  way  to  the  plan  of  the  English  Board 
of  Agriculture.  He  felt  sure  of  its  importance,  but  he 
knew  that  for  the  present,  at  any  rate,  the  plan  was  not 
likely  to  be  adopted  in  the  United  States.13  Such  a 
friendly  reference,  however,  could  not  be  overlooked 
or  forgotten  by  the  zealous  young  parliamentarian. 
Accordingly,  it  is  not  surprising  that  Sinclair,  on  hear- 
ing in  the  summer  of  1796  of  Washington's  proposed 
retirement  from  the  Presidency,  expressed  the  hope 
that  Washington  would  recommend  to  the  American 
people  "some  agricultural  establishment  on  a  great 
scale,  before  you  quit  the  reins  of  government.  By 
that,"  continued  Sinclair,  "I  mean  a  Board  of  Agri- 
culture, or  some  similar  institution,  at  Philadelphia, 
with  societies  of  agriculture  in  the  capital  of  each  state, 
to  correspond  with  it.  Such  an  establishment  would 
soon  enable  the  farmers  of  America  to  acquire  agri- 
cultural knowledge,  and  ....  afford  them  the  means  of 
communicating  what  they  have  learnt  to  their  country- 
men ....  it  might  be  in  my  power,  on  various  occa- 
sions, to  give  useful  hints  to  America,  were  there  any 
public  institution  to  which  they  might  be  trans- 
mitted."14 

This  suggestion  made  an  impression,  for  reference 
to  it  appeared  in  a  letter  of  Washington  written  to 

12  Writings  (ed.  W.  C.  Ford),  XIII,  406-407. 

13  Sinclair,  Correspondence,  I,  280  ff.  II,  18-19. 

.,  II,  6.     Letter  dated  London,  September  10,  1796. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     301 

Alexander  Hamilton  on  November  2, 1796,  while  Wash- 
ington had  under  consideration  his  last  annual  mes- 
sage to  Congress.  These  were  the  President's  words 
to  Hamilton: 

Since  I  wrote  to  you  from  Mount  Vernon  ....  I  received  a 
letter  from  Sir  John  Sinclair  ....  on  the  subject  of  an 
agricultural  establishment. — Though  not  such  an  enthusiast 
as  he  is,  I  am  nevertheless  deeply  impressed  with  the  benefits 
which  would  result  from  such  an  institution,  and  if  you  see 
no  impropriety  in  the  measure,  I  would  leave  it  as  a  recom- 
mendatory one  in  the  Speech  at  the  opening  of  the  Session 
....  it  is  in  my  estimation  a  great  national  object,  and  if 
stated  as  fully  as  the  occasion  and  circumstances  will  admit, 
I  think  it  must  appear  so  ....  whatever  may  be  the  recep- 
tion, or  fate  of  the  recommendation,  I  shall  have  discharged 
my  duty  in  submitting  it  to  the  consideration  of  the  Legis- 
lature  15 

The  matter  assumed  sufficient  importance  for  Wash- 
ington to  ask  Hamilton  and  John  Jay  for  their  "  joint 
opinion"  on  it. 

About  a  month  later  President  Washington's  last 
message  was  delivered.  Preceded  by  some  general 
remarks  on  the  primary  importance  of  agriculture, 
there  was  a  passage  referring  directly  to  the  substance 
of  Sinclair's  suggestions.  Institutions  for  promoting 
agriculture,  remarked  the  President,  grow  up  and  are 
supported  by  the  public  purse.  To  what  object,  he 
asked,  can  the  public  purse  "be  dedicated  with  greater 
propriety"?  Then  he  continued: 

•Among  the  means  which  have  been  employed  to  this  end  none 
have  been  attended  with  greater  success  than  the  establish- 
ment of  boards  ....  charged  with  collecting  and  diffusing 
15  Washington,  Writings,  XIII,  326. 


302  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

information,  and  enabled  by  premiums  and  small  pecuniary 
aids  to  encourage  and  assist  a  spirit  of  discovery  and  improve- 
ment. This  species  of  establishment  contributes  doubly  to 
the  increase  of  improvement  by  stimulating  to  enterprise  and 
experiment,  and  by  drawing  to  a  common  center  the  results 
everywhere  of  individual  skill  and  observation,  and  spreading 
them  thence  over  the  whole  nation.  Experience  accordingly 
has  shewn  that  they  are  very  cheap  instruments  of  immense 
national  benefits.16 

On  December  10  the  Senate  responded,  indicating 
their  interest  in  this  particular  project.  A  few  days 
later,  on  December  16,  the  House  named  a  committee 
of  three  to  consider  the  matter.  On  January  17  fol- 
lowing, this  House  committee  recommended  a  Society 
for  the  Promotion  of  Agriculture,  having  a  secretary 
who  should  be  paid  by  the  national  government.  It 
was  planned  that  the  Society  should  be  established  at 
the  seat  of  government,  its  membership  including 
Senators,  Representatives,  Judges  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  the  three  Secretaries  of  Departments,  the  Attor- 
ney-General, "and  such  other  persons  as  should  choose 
to  become  members  agreeably  to  the  rules  prescribed. ' ' 
At  the  annual  meeting  this  miscellaneous  membership 
was  to  elect  officers  and  "a  Board,  to  consist  of  not 
more  than  thirty  persons  which  shall  be  called  'A 
Board  of  Agriculture/  "17  The  Society  was  to  be 
incorporated. 

This  plan  for  a  Society  and  a  National  Board  of 
Agriculture  was  crude  and  at  the  time  impracticable. 
It  was  allowed  to  drop.  "I  am  sorry, "  wrote  Wash- 

16  Messages  and  Papers,  I,  202.    December  7,  1796. 

17  Annals  of  Congress,  4  Cong.,  2  sess.  (1796-1797),  p.  1835. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     303 

ington  to  Sinclair  on  March  6,  1797,  " .  .  .  .  that  nothing 
final  in  Congress  has  been  decided  respecting  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  National  Board  of  Agriculture,  recom- 
mended by  me,  at  the  opening  of  the  session. ' '  There 
was  no  opposition  to  the  measure  among  members  of 
Congress,  Washington  thought.  The  plan  fell  through 
because  of  limited  time  and  the  pressure  of  more 
important  business.  He  remarked  in  a  consoling  tone 
that  he  thought  it  "highly  probable  that  next  session 
will  bring  this  matter  to  maturity.  "w  But,  while  the 
original  plan  was  probably  forgotten,  Washington's 
suggestion  in  his  message  of  December,  1796,  was 
referred  to  frequently  and  for  many  years  after  its 
first  utterance. 

II 

Local  associations  for  assisting  farmers  began  to 
appear  in  the  United  States  soon  after  the  close  of  the 
Revolution.  The  year  1785  witnessed  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Philadelphia  Society  for  Promoting  Agri- 
culture (incorporated  in  1809),  and  the  Charleston 
(S.  C.)  Society  for  the  Promotion  of  Agriculture.  By 
1800  there  were  at  least  a  dozen  such  organizations  to 
be  found  here  and  there  from  the  province  of  Maine 
southwards.19  No  one  of  these  was  destined  to  have 
greater  usefulness,  through  the  character  of  its  mem- 
bership as  well  as  its  publications,  than  the  Massachu- 
setts Society  for  Promoting  Agriculture  (1792).  In 
1803  the  Society  for  Promoting  Agriculture  in  Connec- 

18  Sinclair,  Correspondence,  II,  26. 

19  Bailey,  Cyclopedia  of  American  Agriculture,  IV,  291. 


304  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

ticut  was  started,  later  to  be  known  as  the  New  Haven 
County  Agricultural  Society.  Five  years  afterwards, 
in  1808,  the  Pennsylvania  Society  of  Agriculture  was 
organized.  The  mere  list  might  be  considerably 
increased. 

The  Berkshire  Agricultural  Society  in  western 
Massachusetts  was  established  chiefly  through  the 
energetic  efforts  and  foresight  of  Elkanah  Watson 
in  1810.  Watson  worked  toward  this  object  from  the 
time  that  he  purchased  a  farm  in  Pittsfield  in  1807. 
It  appears,  from  his  account  of  the  matter,  that  in  the 
autumn  of  that  year  he  exhibited  a  pair  of  merino 
sheep  "under  the  great  elm  tree  in  the  public  square, 
in  Pittsfield."  Soon  afterward  he  addressed  the 
farmers  in  that  region  for  the  purpose  of  getting  them 
interested  in  the  breeding  of  merinos,  and  incidentally 
conceived  of  the  plan  of  an  agricultural  society. 
Arousing  his  neighbors  to  the  importance  of  agricul- 
ture and  cattle-breeding  by  a  series  of  small  agricul- 
tural exhibits  and  cattle  shows,  he  finally  succeeded  in 
starting  the  Berkshire  Society.  The  annual  exhibi- 
tions gradually  brought  the  Society  into  prominence. 
Watson  lost  no  opportunity  to  extend  its  influence  by 
writing  and  speaking  of  it,  so  that  the  Berkshire 
Society  became  the  model  of  many  similar  organiza- 
tions in  numerous  states.  By  1817  the  Massachusetts 
legislature  was  willing  to  assist  the  organization. 
Already  the  Society  had  become  a  powerful  factor  in 
the  industrial  life  of  western  Massachusetts.20 

20  Elkanah  Watson,  History  of  the  Else,  Progress,  and  Existing  Con- 
dition of  the  Western  Canals  in  the  State  of  New  York  ....  together 
with  the  Eise,  Progress,  and  Existing  State  of  Modern  Agricultural 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     305 

In  the  long  epoch  of  peace  which  succeeded  the  war 
of  1812  American  agriculture  (like  other  forms  of 
industry)  experienced  changes  which  amounted  to  a 
profound  transformation.  It  passed  from  its  old  basis 
of  self-sufficiency  into  a  great  and  prolonged  com- 
mercial stage  in  which  its  products  were  primarily 
intended  for  world- wide  markets.  The  transformation 
was  the  result  of  many  factors,  chief  among  which 
were  the  rapid  expansion  of  population  westwards,  the 
development  of  a  public  land  policy,  the  growth  of 
southern  cotton,  the  application  of  science  and  inven- 
tion to  farm  products,  and  the  development — especially 
remarkable  after  1830 — of  transportation.  Under  the 
spell  of  this  process  agricultural  societies  sprang  up  in 
many  states  of  the  Union :  there  were  district  societies, 
county  societies,  and  state  societies  to  be  found  in  the 
East,  the  South,  the  Middle  and  even  the  Far  West.  In 
1852  it  was  estimated  that  there  were  some  three 
hundred  active  organizations  in  the  thirty-one  states 
and  five  territories.21  And  by  the  opening  of  the  Civil 
War,  nine  years  later  in  1861,  such  organizations  prob- 
ably reached  nearly  a  thousand  in  number — so  notable 
was  the  decade  1850-1860  for  agricultural  progress.22 

Societies,  on  the  Berkshire  System  ....  (Albany:  1820),  pp.  116-125, 
133  if.,  179  ff.  I  have  used  in  this  account  D.  J.  Browne's  ''Progress 
and  Public  Encouragement  of  Agriculture  in  Eussia,  Prussia,  and  the 
United  States"  appearing  in  Executive  Documents,  35  Cong.,  1  sess. 
(1857-1858),  IV,  No.  30,  pp.  1-50. 

21  Journal  of  the   United  States   Agricultural  Society    (Washington, 
JO.  C.,  August,  1852),  I,  iii. 

22  B.  P.  Poore  declared  in  January,  1860,  that  there  were  941  agri- 
cultural organizations  on  the  books  of  the  United  States  Agricultural 
Society  of  Washington.    The  Quarterly  Journal  of  Agriculture    (Wash- 
ington, April,  1860),  VIII,  26. 


306  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

By  that  time,  too,  many  state  boards  of  agriculture  had 
been  formed,  especially  in  the  northern  states.  As 
early  as  1791  New  York  had  shown  a  very  progressive 
spirit  in  beginning  a  series  of  annual  reports  on  agri- 
culture; and  early  in  1820  had  made  provision  for  a 
state  board  of  agriculture,  including  appropriations 
for  its  farming  interests.23 

There  were  influences  working  toward  interstate 
organizations  of  agricultural  societies  and  interests 
from  an  early  date.  Cattle  fairs  had  been  known  in 
colonial  times.24  In  Wethersfield,  Connecticut,  a  fair  for 
the  display  and  sale  of  farming  products  was  held  in 
October,  1784.  Legal  provision  was  made  by  the 
authorities  of  the  City  of  Washington  in  1804-1805 
to  encourage  the  organization  of  fairs  for  the  exhi- 
bition of  cattle  and  merchandise.  Within  those  two 
years  there  are  records  of  three  fairs  held  in  Washing- 
ton. The  t '  Arlington  Sheep-Shearing ' ' — organized 
yearly  for  a  series  of  years  previous  to  1812  on  the 
estate  of  George  W.  P.  Custis  in  northern  Virginia- 
was  a  sort  of  fair.  In  fact,  at  least  as  early  as  1810, 
Custis  had  outlined  a  project  for  a  national  agricul- 
tural organization  which  was  to  be  partly  sustained  by 
government  funds.  The  project,  it  may  be  presumed, 
reflected  vaguely  President  Washington's  ideal  of  a 
national  board  of  agriculture. 

The  first  careful  organization  of  an  interstate  nature 

23  E.  Watson,  op.  cit.,  pp.  152  ff.    Watson  exerted  himself  vigorously 
for  the  attainment  of  a  board  of  agriculture  in  New  York,  the  state  in 
which  he  resided  after  1815. 

24  Journal  of  the  United  States  Agricultural  Society,  III,  29.     Pas- 
sage cited  from  the  Maryland  Gazette  of  September  8,  1747. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     307 

was  the  Columbian  Agricultural  Society.  This  Society, 
sustained  by  the  private  subscriptions  of  such  patrons 
as  Charles  Carroll  of  Carrollton,  John  F.  Mercer, 
Custis,  and  Joel  Barlow,  was  definitely  planned  in 
November,  1809.  It  went  out  of  existence  in  the  winter 
of  1812  after  having  held  six  semi-annual  exhibitions  in 
Georgetown.  It  brought  together  at  regular  intervals 
products  from  the  District,  Maryland,  and  Virginia,  in 
the  shape  of  cattle,  horses,  sheep,  and  wares.25 

While  the  war  of  1812  interrupted  commerce,  it  had 
only  a  slight  effect  upon  agriculture.  Cotton,  sugar, 
and  tobacco  became  more  and  more  important  crops 
after  1815  in  the  South.  In  the  North  and  Middle  West 
mixed  farming  made  rapid  advances.  But  when,  in 
1816,  Elkanah  Watson  conceived  the  idea  of  petitioning 
Congress  for  a  National  Board  of  Agriculture  planned 
in  accordance  with  President  Washington's  suggestion 
advanced  twenty  years  earlier,  he  was  almost  sure  to 
be  disappointed.  Watson 's  petition,  sanctioned  by  and 
presented  in  the  name  of  the  Berkshire  Association  for 
the  Promotion  of  Agriculture  and  Manufactures,  was 
brought  before  the  House  of  Representatives  on  Janu- 
ary 29,  1817.  Nearly  a  month  later,  on  February  21,  a 
bill  providing  for  the  establishment  of  such  a  Board 
was  read  twice.  That  was  the  end  of  the  matter.26 

Congress,  hurrying  towards  the  close  of  its  session, 
was  distinctly  opposed  to  any  increase  of  administra- 
tive machinery  and  was  striving  to  contract  govern- 

25  Hid.,  VII,  105-124.  See  also  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Agri- 
culture for  1866,  pp.  516  ff. 

26 Annals  of  Congress,  14  Cong.,  2  sess.  (1816-1817),  pp.  767-768, 
1018. 


308  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

ment  appropriations.  Moreover,  the  country  was 
hardly  prepared  for  such  a  novel  institution  as  a 
National  Board  of  Agriculture.  Watson  himself  was 
quite  aware  of  the  reasons  for  the  failure  of  the  project 
when  he  wrote  of  it  a  year  or  so  later  and  commented : 
"The  diffusion  of  agricultural  societies,  in  all  the 
states,  will  prepare  the  way.  They  will  soon  see  the 
importance  and  necessity  of  such  an  institution,  to  take 
a  lead,  especially  in  drawing  from  foreign  countries, 
through  our  consuls,  all  that  can  promote  agriculture 
and  the  arts  in  America >>27 

III 

From  an  early  period  the  government's  consuls 
abroad  reported  to  the  State  Department  much  infor- 
mation valuable  to  American  farmers.  Eare  plants  and 
seeds  were  frequently  forwarded,  and  occasionally 
animals,  as  when,  for  example,  William  Jarvis,  consul 
at  Lisbon,  sent  to  America  in  1810  a  large  flock  of 
merino  sheep.28  Under  date  of  March  26,  1819,  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  William  H.  Crawford, 
addressed  a  circular  letter  to  the  American  consuls 
asking  them  to  procure  from  abroad  useful  seeds  and 
plants  as  well  as  inventions.  Crawford  assured  them 
that  the  collectors  of  the  different  ports  of  the  United 
States  would  cheerfully  co-operate  in  this  interesting 
and  beneficial  undertaking,  thus  becoming  distributors 
of  any  collections  of  plants  and  seeds  which  might  be 
consigned  to  them.  "At  present,"  he  concluded,  "no 

27  E.  Watson,  op.  cit.,  pp.  204  ff. 

280.  H.  Greathouse,  Historical  Sketch  of  the  U.  S.  Department  of 
Agriculture  ....  (Washington:  1907,  2d  revision),  p.  7. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     309 


expense  can  be  authorized,  in  relation  to  these  objects. 
Should  the  result  of  these  suggestions  answer  my 
expectations,  it  is  possible  that  the  attention  of  the 
national  legislature  may  be  attracted  to  the  subject, 
and  that  some  provisions  may  be  made,  especially  in 

relation  to  useful  inventions "  Crawford's  plan 

was  certainly  among  the  very  first  practical  national 
measures  for  the  promotion  of  American  agriculture.29 

About  a  year  after  Crawford's  letter  was  written, 
Congress  created  a  Committee  on  Agriculture,  presum- 
ably for  the  purpose  of  devising  ways  and  means  for 
the  encouragement  of  farming.30  Congress  occasionally 
authorized  the  printing  of  some  report  or  treatise  per- 
taining to  the  subject  for  general  distribution.  But 
for  years  agricultural  interests  were  looked  after  in 
desultory  fashion  until  the  Patent  Office  was  reorgan- 
ized in  1836.  At  that  time  there  came  into  the  new 
position — that  of  Commissioner  of  Patents — a  man 
who  appreciated  the  situation,  particularly  with 
respect  to  the  lack  of  order  and  regularity  in  supply- 
ing information  to  the  farmers,  and  who  set  deliber- 
ately about  improving  it.  The  first  Commissioner  of 
Patents  was  the  son  of  Oliver  Ellsworth,  once  Chief- 
Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court — Henry  L.  Ellsworth  of 
Connecticut,  who  served  in  the  office  from  1836  to  1845. 

From  April,  1790,  when  the  first  law  providing  for 
patents  was  enacted,  the  State  Department  had  been 
the  repository  for  all  patent  records.  At  first  Con- 

»  E.  Watson,  op.  cit.,  pp.  205-206. 

so  Annals  of  Congress,  18  Cong.,  1  sess.  (1823-1824),  pp.  1686,  1690. 
The  Committee  on  Agriculture  was  created  on  May  3,  1820. 


310  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

gress  entrusted  the  granting  of  letters  patent  to  the 
Secretary  of  State,  Secretary  of  War,  and  the  Attor- 
ney-General. But  in  February,  1793,  the  privilege  of 
granting  patents  was  confined  to  the  Secretary  of 
State  with  the  approval  of  the  Attorney-General.  In 
the  course  of  years  a  clerk  in  the  State  Department, 
officially  known  as  Superintendent  of  Patents,  was 
authorized.  And  this  was  the  arrangement  until  1836 
when  the  Patent  Office  was  organized  as  a  bureau  in 
the  State  Department.  Inasmuch  as  a  very  large  pro- 
portion of  patents  involve  improvements  in  imple- 
ments of  agriculture  or  in  processes  for  tilling  the  soil, 
the  Patent  Office  was  bound  to  form  a  center  of  inter- 
est to  the  farmers,  especially  as  by  law  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Patents  was  obliged  to  report  such  statistics 
of  agriculture  as  he  might  collect.31 

Henry  L.  Ellsworth  was  a  man  of  ideas.  Trained  at 
Yale  College,  where  he  was  graduated  in  1810,  he 
entered  for  a  time  into  the  profession  of  law,  prac- 
ticing in  Hartford,  Connecticut.  He  was  interested 
even  in  his  younger  days  in  the  problems  of  farming, 
for  he  acted  as  secretary  of  the  Hartford  Agricultural 
Society  long  before  he  entered  the  government  service. 
He  saw  something  of  life  on  the  frontier  and  was  for  a 
while  resident  commissioner  among  the  Indian  tribes 
in  Arkansas.  In  his  first  report  as  Commissioner  of 

31 1  Statutes  at  Large,  pp.  109  ff.,  318  ff.,  5  Hid.,  pp.  117  ff.  W.  C. 
Eobinson,  The  Law  of  Patents  for  Useful  Inventions  (3  vols.,  1890),  I, 
76  ff.  Gaillard  Hunt  sketches  the  early  history  of  the  Patent  Office  in 
"The  History  of  the  Department  of  State,"  printed  in  The  American 
Journal  of  International  Law,  October,  1909,  III,  909-912. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     311 

Patents  he  spoke  of  "the  aid  which  husbandry  might 
derive  from  the  establishment  of  a  regular  system  for 
the  selection  and  distribution  of  grain  and  seeds  of 
the  choicest  variety  for  agricultural  purposes/'32 
Largely  through  his  influence  the  next  year  (1839), 
Congress  was  induced  to  make  a  puny  appropriation 
of  one  thousand  dollars — its  first — for  aiding  agri- 
cultural interests.  In  the  winter  of  1841,  becoming 
interested  in  the  formation  at  Washington  of  the  Agri- 
cultural Society  of  the  United  States,  Ellsworth 
headed  a  committee  of  that  organization  in  petitioning 
Congress  in  August,  1842,  for  a  portion  of  the  Smith- 
son  bequest,  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  agriculture 
throughout  the  Union.  The  petition  was  tabled.33 
Then  in  January,  1843,  Ellsworth  recommended  in  his 
annual  report  an  agricultural  bureau,  although,  he 
argued,  even  an  agricultural  clerkship  might  be  made 
of  much  service  to  the  farming  interests.34  As  the 
years  passed,  his  annual  reports  were  more  and  more 
widely  read  and  sought  for;  and  Congress  lent  its  aid 
in  distributing  them. 

That  Ellsworth  actually  succeeded  in  making  a 
government  document  interesting,  will  be  obvious  from 
a  passage  under  date  of  March  31,  1845,  taken  from 
John  Quincy  Adams's  Memoirs.  "I  became  immersed 
this  morning,"  wrote  Adams,  "in  the  annual  report  of 
the  Commissioner  of  the  Patent  Office,  Henry  L.  Ells- 

32 Senate  Documents,  25  Cong.,  2  sess.  (1837-1838),  II,  No.  105,  pp. 
4-5. 

33  W.  J.  Rhees,  The  Smithsonian  Institution :  Documents  relative  to 
its  Origin  and  History  (1901),  I,  238-239.    Infra,  Appendix  C,  p.  402. 

34  Senate  Documents,  27  Cong.,  3  sess.  (1842-1843),  III,  No.  129,  p.  3. 


312  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

worth — a  document  which  he  has  rendered  so  inter- 
esting that  at  the  recent  session  of  Congress  the  House 
ordered  twenty-five  thousand  extra  copies  of  it  to  be 
printed  for  circulation  by  the  members.  He  has  for  a 
succession  of  years  been  improving  it  from  year  to 
year,  till  it  forms  a  volume  of  five  hundred  pages,  and 
a  calendar  of  mechanical  and  agricultural  inventions 
and  discoveries  more  sought  after  than  any  other 
annual  document  published  by  Congress.  Ellsworth 
has  turned  the  Patent  Office, ' '  declared  Adams,  ' '  from 
a  mere  gim-crack  shop  into  a  great  and  highly  useful 
public  establishment."  The  conscientious  old  states- 
man, lured  by  Ellsworth's  skill,  thus  concluded: 

I  read  the  report  this  morning.  It  consumed  an  hour  of  time, 
and  diverted  me  from  my  prescribed  and  appropriate  employ- 
ment; further,  it  seduced  me  to  turn  over  for  another  hour 

and  more  the  subsequent  pages  and  the  appendix As 

I  proceeded,  I  found  continual  instigation  to  further  enquiry, 
and  was  finally  obliged  to  break  off  so  as  not  to  lose  the  whole 
day.35 

With  small  appropriations  from  Congress  for  the 
purpose  of  distributing  seeds,  carrying  on  investiga- 
tions, and  collecting  agricultural  statistics,  and  an 
annual  report  filled  with  information  for  the  farmers 
of  the  country,  the  Patent  Office  by  1845  had  really 
assumed  in  many  respects  the  functions  of  an  agri- 
cultural bureau.  In  fact,  as  Edmund  Burke,  successor 
to  Ellsworth,  pointed  out,  "the  Patent  Office  is  now 
[1846]  regarded  as  the  general  head  and  representa- 
tive of  the  useful  arts  and  the  industrial  interests  of 

35X11,  188-189. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     313 

the  country/7  Burke 's  special  suggestion  was  this: 
that  "it  might  be  employed  in  collecting  the  statistics 
of  all  the  great  branches  of  national  industry — agri- 
cultural, manufacturing,  commercial  and  mining."36 

Here  and  there  the  thought  of  centralizing  farming 
interests  at  Washington  was  taking  shape  and  find- 
ing expression.  A  southern  writer,  for  example,  in 
De  Bow's  Commercial  Review,  a  publication  that 
endeavored  to  represent  agricultural  and  industrial 
matters  of  the  South  and  West,  contributing  an 
article  on  "Agriculture  of  Louisiana "  in  May,  1847, 
remarked  that  a  "national  board  of  agriculture,  com- 
prising great  intelligence,  sagacity  and  judgment, 
which  should  have  the  whole  subject  of  American 
production,  agriculture,  manufactures,  and  commerce 
before  it,  could  do  more  to  indicate  the  true  policy  for 
each  section  to  pursue,  than  can  be  acquired  in  any 
other  way.  This,"  continued  the  writer,  "was  the 
favorite  plan  of  our  illustrious  Washington,  and  has 
been  sedulously  cherished  and  ably  advocated  by  many 
of  our  most  intelligent  statesmen  since."37 

President  Zachary  Taylor,  himself  from  Louisiana, 
was  the  first  President  after  Washington  who  made 
a  definite  recommendation  in  his  annual  message 
approving  some  sort  of  central  administrative  organi- 
zation for  agriculture.  The  recommendation,  appear- 
ing in  December,  1849,  follows : 

.No  direct  aid  has  been  given  by  the  General  Government  to 
the  improvement  of  agriculture  except  by  the  expenditure 

36  Senate  Documents,  29  Cong.,  1  sess.  (1845-1846),  VI,  No.  307,  p.  17. 

37  III,  413.    The  author  was  K.  L.  Allen  of  New  Orleans,  La. 


314  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

of  small  sums  for  the  collection  and  publication  of  agricul- 
tural statistics  and  for  some  chemical  analyses,  which  have 
been  thus  far  paid  for  out  of  the  patent  fund.  This  aid  is, 
in  my  opinion,  wholly  inadequate.  To  give  to  this  leading 
branch  of  American  industry  the  encouragement  which  it 
merits,  I  respectfully  recommend  the  establishment  of  an 
agricultural  bureau,  to  be  connected  with  the  Department  of 
the  Interior.  To  elevate  the  social  condition  of  the  agricul- 
turist, to  increase  his  prosperity,  and  to  extend  his  means 
of  usefulness  to  his  country,  by  multiplying  his  sources  of 
information,  should  be  the  study  of  every  statesman  and  a 
primary  object  with  every  legislator.38 

Although  Congress  took  no  action  on  Taylor's 
recommendation,  the  passage  in  the  message  brought 
the  subject  once  more  into  prominence  at  an  epoch 
when  both  local  and  national  authorities  were  to 
become  satisfied  that  a  bureau  or  department  of  agri- 
culture was  a  necessary  addition  to  the  organization 
of  the  central  government.  To  get  such  an  organiza- 
tion established  was  one  of  the  many  notable  tasks 
of  the  next  momentous  decade. 

IV 

The  more  sensational  episodes  of  the  decade  1850- 
1860,  influencing  party  politics  and  attracting  wide- 
spread popular  attention,  have  naturally  enlisted  the 
interest  of  historical  writers  concerned  with  the  affairs 
of  that  time.  These  episodes  have  been  emphasized 
somewhat  to  the  neglect  of  certain  quiet,  persistent, 
and  normal  social  and  industrial  forces  which,  pushing 


38  Messages  and  Papers,  V,  18. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     315 

ahead  under  the  steady  impetus  of  developing 
resources  and  western  expansion,  were  making  for 
various  administrative  and  institutional  changes  of 
consequence.  After  1830  the  stream  of  foreign 
immigrants  into  the  United  States  began  noticeably 
to  expand.  The  census  of  1850  indicated  that  1,713,- 
250  newcomers  had  entered  the  country  within  a 
decade.  Many  of  these  were  destined  to  take  up  lands 
in  the  West.  Between  1850  and  1860  the  influx  of 
foreigners,  attracted  by  the  discovery  of  gold  and 
alluring  opportunities  of  various  kinds,  reached  in 
numbers  to  2,598,214;  and  there  was  only  a  slightly 
diminished  number  of  foreign  arrivals  during  the 
decade  opened  by  the  Civil  War.  By  1850  the  South 
was  conscious  of  having  lost  ground  in  the  great  strug- 
gle toward  industrial  improvement.  The  North  and 
the  West  on  the  other  hand  were  becoming  more  and 
more  prosperous,  and  were  equally  conscious  of  the 
fact. 

No  writer  has  hitherto  referred  in  any  but  the  brief- 
est way  to  the  establishment  at  Washington  in  1852  of 
the  United  States  Agricultural  Society.  Inasmuch  as 
this  Society  was  the  means  of  arousing  local  interests 
in  agriculture  and  focusing  them  on  the  problem  of 
general  moment — the  problem  of  obtaining  from  Con- 
gress the  establishment  of  a  Bureau  or  Department  of 
Agriculture  in  the  national  government — it  may  be 
well  to  examine  briefly  its  history,  for  the  Society  had 
a  marked  influence  in  the  matter  of  the  legislation  of 
1862  which  finally  determined  that  a  Department  'of 
Agriculture  should  be  organized. 


316  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Efforts  to  form  combinations  of  agricultural  organi- 
zations go  back,  as  we  have  seen,  at  least  to  the  first 
decade  of  the  nineteenth  century.  The  Columbian 
Agricultural  Society  for  the  Promotion  of  Eural  and 
Domestic  Economy,  established  at  Georgetown,  D.  C., 
in  1809  and  lasting  for  three  years,  was  the  first  care- 
fully constituted  project  of  the  kind,  and  might  pos- 
sibly have  gained  a  place  of  influence,  had  it  not  been 
for  the  War  of  1812.  Nothing  of  a  similar  nature  can 
probably  be  discovered  until  the  Agricultural  Society 
of  the  United  States  was  organized  at  Washington  in 
December,  1841.  Designed  as  a  medium  of  communica- 
tion with  agricultural  societies  throughout  the  Union, 
the  Society  planned  definitely  to  work  for  the  estab- 
lishment in  the  District  of  Columbia  of  a  school  of  agri- 
culture (including  lectures  on  many  scientific  subjects), 
an  experimental  farm,  a  periodical,  and  regular  exhi- 
bitions or  fairs.  At  the  very  outset,  it  determined  to 
petition  Congress  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  for  its 
objects  the  Smithson  bequest,  concerning  the  proper 
disposition  of  which  there  was  at  the  moment  much 
doubt.  In  some  respects  its  aims  were  a  duplication 
of  those  of  the  National  Institute  for  the  Promotion  of 
Science,  an  organization  already  a  year  or  so  old  in 
1841;  and  consequently  were  not  favored  by  certain 
influential  men  in  Washington.  On  the  other  hand  the 
Society  enlisted  the  active  interest  of  H.  L.  Ellsworth, 
Commissioner  of  Patents,  and  of  such  leading  Senators 
as  Dixon  H.  Lewis  of  Alabama,  and  Eobert  J.  Walker 
of  Mississippi.  John  Stuart  Skinner  of  Maryland, 
well  known  as  the  editor  of  the  first  agricultural  paper 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     317 

established  in  the  United  States,39  Edmund  Ruffin  of 
Virginia,  and  Amos  Kendall  of  Kentucky  were  con- 
nected with  the  Society  in  official  capacities.  Hon. 
James  Mercer  Garnett  of  Virginia,  who  had  served  his 
state  in  Congress  and  had  acted  for  some  twenty  years 
as  president  of  the  Fredericksburg  Agricultural 
Society,  was  chosen  first  and  only  president  of  the  new 
organization. 

The  Agricultural  Society  of  the  United  States  held 
but  one  regular  session  after  its  start,  the  session  of 
May  4-5,  1842.  There  was  not  the  slightest  evidence 
of  enthusiasm  about  it.  The  tabling  of  the  Society's 
petition  for  the  Smithson  bequest  by  Congress  in  the 
following  August  was  the  last  incident  in  the  Society's 
history  of  which  there  is  record.  The  time  for  such  a 
society  had  not  come.  But  its  failure  lay  partly  in  the 
fact  that  it  was  largely  the  result  of  political  forces ; 
it  was  neither  representative  of  many  agricultural 
societies  nor  sufficiently  disinterested  in  its  aims  to 
make  a  widespread  appeal  to  the  farming  class.  It 
expressed  a  clear  demand  for  government  aid  to  agri- 
culture. Moreover,  there  cannot  be  the  least  doubt  that 
many  of  its  members  would  have  approved  heartily  of 
petitions  that  had  already  begun  to  be  addressed  to 
Congress  asking  for  annual  government  reports  on 
agricultural  conditions  in  this  country  and  abroad,  or 
would  have  favored  the  demand  for  a  national  depart- 
ment of  agriculture  that  was  just  beginning  to  be 
heard.40 

39 "The  American  Farmer. "    Baltimore,  April  2,  1819-1862. 

« National   Intelligencer,    November,    1841, — May,    1842.     Garnett 's 


318  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

By  the  middle  of  the  century  the  time  for  making 
sporadic  efforts  on  behalf  of  government  aid  for  agri- 
culture was  nearly  over.  In  1850  the  legislature  of 
Pennsylvania  put  itself  on  record  as  favoring  a 
National  Board  of  Agriculture.41  But  nothing  came  of 
the  suggestion.  At  length,  on  May  20,  1852,  through 
the  co-operation  of  a  group  of  men  actively  interested 
in  various  local  agricultural  boards  and  societies  scat- 
tered principally  over  the  northeastern  states — men 
keenly  appreciative  of  the  practical  truth  that  public 
improvements  are  brought  about  by  voluntary  asso- 
ciation and  combined  effort — a  call  was  sent  out  for 
a  National  Convention  of  Agriculturists  to  meet  at 
Washington,  D.  C.,  on  the  24th  and  25th  of  the  follow- 
ing June,  for  the  purpose  of  forming  a  national  agri- 
cultural society.  In  response  there  assembled  in 
Washington  upwards  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  dele- 
gates who  projected  and  organized  the  United  States 
Agricultural  Society.  Hon.  Marshall  P.  Wilder  of 
Boston,  one  of  the  foremost  projectors  of  the  plan,  a 
well-to-do  merchant,  very  accomplished  as  a  farmer 
and  public  spirited  as  a  citizen,  was  chosen  first  presi- 

address  was  printed  in  this  paper  on  December  21,  1841.  The  list  of 
officers  will  be  found  printed  on  December  20,  and  again,  as  altered  at 
the  May  session,  on  May  11,  1842.  On  January  10,  1840,  Joseph  L. 
Smith  memorialized  Congress,  asking  for  an  annual  report  on  Agricul- 
ture. Senate  Documents,  26  Cong.,  I  sess.  (1839-1840),  III,  No.  61.  On 
February  3  following,  J.  L.  Smith  and  others  petitioned  for  a  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture.  Ibid.,  IV,  No.  181.  The  National  Intelligencer  of 
October  24,  1842,  and  January  21,  1843,  throws  some  additional  light 
on  the  movement  for  a  Department  of  Agriculture  at  this  early  time. 

« Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  31  Cong.  1  sess.  (1849-1850),  I, 
No.  107. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     319 

dent,  and  served  as  such  until  1858.  Vice-presidents 
were  named — a  long  list,  including  one  representative 
name  from  every  one  of  the  thirty-one  states  and  five 
territories,  as  well  as  from  the  District  of  Columbia; 
and  such  other  officers  as  were  essential  to  maintain 
the  active  work  of  a  large  and  truly  representative 
society. 

The  Society  as  thus  organized  was  a  natural  devel- 
opment of  state  and  local  institutions  which  for  years 
had  been  gaining  strength  and  working  toward  certain 
common  ideals.  Inevitably  it  drew  to  itself  many  of 
the  leading  farmers  in  the  United  States,  and  for  ten 
years  (1852-1862)  expressed  through  its  Journal  the 
views  on  national  and  local  affairs  of  the  most  enlight- 
ened and  influential  farming  organizations  in  the 
country.  From  the  very  outset  the  Society  tried  to 
focus  public  attention  on  the  proper  solution  of  the 
problem  of  government  aid  for  the  farmers.  At  every 
annual  meeting  it  presented  such  evidence  of  agricul- 
tural progress  as  could  be  discovered ;  and  it  discussed 
regularly,  or  urged  the  special  project  of,  the  establish- 
ment of  a  national  Department  of  Agriculture  with  a 
cabinet  officer  at  its  head. 

Presidents  Fillmore,  Pierce,  and  Buchanan  appeared 
at  one  time  or  another  at  the  annual  meetings  of  the 
United  States  Agricultural  Society.  Such  heads  of 
departments  as  Webster,  Secretary  of  State,  Alex- 
ander H.  H.  Stuart  of  Virginia,  Eobert  McClelland  of 
Michigan,  and  Jacob  Thompson  of  Mississippi,  Secre- 
taries of  the  Interior,  and  James  Guthrie  of  Kentucky, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  occasionally  attended.  By 


320  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

1862  the  Society  had  on  its  rolls  as  honorary  members 
the  five  living  ex-Presidents  of  the  United  States,  as 
well  as  President  Lincoln.  Many  Senators  and  Repre- 
sentatives served  as  regularly  qualified  delegates  to  its 
sessions.  Among  its  active  members  may  be  named 
such  men  as  Stephen  A.  Douglas  of  Illinois,  Justin  S. 
Morrill  of  Vermont,  Isaac  Toucey  of  Connecticut, 
George  E.  Waring,  Jr.,  and  Horace  Greeley  of  New 
York,  William  Pitt  Fessenden  of  Maine,  Robert  W. 
Barnwell  of  South  Carolina,  Tench  Tilghman  of  Mary- 
land, and  James  D.  B.  De  Bow  of  Louisiana. 

Beginning  with  an  exhibition  of  horses  at  Spring- 
field, Massachusetts,  in  the  autumn  of  1853,  the  Society 
conducted  a  series  of  eight  annual  fairs,  the  others 
taking  place  at  Springfield,  Ohio  (1854),  Boston 
(1855),  Philadelphia  (1856),  Louisville  (1857),  Rich- 
mond, Virginia  (1858),  Chicago  (1859),  and  Cincinnati 
(1860).  These  fairs,  always  extending  over  a  period 
of  several  days,  were  carefully  planned,  largely 
attended,  and  served  as  a  means  of  bringing  together 
from  all  parts  of  the  country  interesting  specimens  of 
grain,  seeds,  fruit,  cattle,  horses,  and  agricultural 
machinery.  On  these  field  occasions  the  Society  was 
addressed  by  men  of  such  standing  as  Edward  Everett, 
Robert  C.  Winthrop,  Caleb  Cushing,  ex-President 
Tyler,  and  Senators  Douglas  and  Crittenden. 

From  the  very  beginning  the  United  States  Agri- 
cultural Society  had  prestige,  and  was  sure  to  have 
influence,  for  it  was  altogether  an  important  as  well  as 
a  unique  organization — a  remarkable  expression,  in  its 
way,  of  the  fact  characterizing  the  decade  before  the 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     321 

Civil  War  that  agriculture  had  at  length  become  fash- 
ionable.42 In  order  to  pass  judgment  on  the  significance 
of  the  Society  in  relation  to  the  movement  toward  the 
establishment  of  a  national  Department  of  Agriculture, 
the  reader  should  bear  in  mind  two  sets  of  factors  that 
mark  the  decade  before  the  War. 

First,  notwithstanding  the  crisis  of  1857,  the  decade 
revealed  great  agricultural  prosperity  and  develop- 
ment. Without  entering  into  the  detailed  statistics  of 
the  decade,  it  may  be  said  that  the  national  wealth  wTas 
more  than  doubled.  So  were  the  values  of  farms  and 
farm  property.  There  was  a  decrease  in  the  produc- 
tion of  sugar-cane.  But  such  leading  staples  as  corn, 
wheat,  cotton,  and  wool  increased  enormously.  The 
mileage  of  railroads  was  more  than  tripled.  And 
Congress,  aware  of  the  growing  importance  of  agri- 
culture and  doubtless  influenced  by  knowledge  of  the 
fact,  raised  the  annual  appropriations  for  agriculture 
from  $5,000  in  1853  to  $10,000  in  1854.  From  1854  to 
1860  inclusive,  these  appropriations  averaged  yearly 
slightly  less  than  $47,000,  indicating  the  legislative 
trend  of  the  epoch.43 

Second,  in  government  circles  there  was  throughout 
the  decade  a  decided  inclination  in  favor  of  establish- 
ing a  Bureau  of  Agriculture,  a  plan  which  would  have 
taken  the  work  of  collecting  agricultural  statistics 
from  the  charge  of  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  and 
have  placed  it  under  an  official  directly  responsible  to 

42  "  Agriculture  has  at  length  become  fashionable."     B.  P.  Poore's 
opening  sentence  of  an  article  in  the  Journal  of  the  United  States  Agri- 
cultural Society  for  1854  (ed.  W.  S.  King,  Boston:  1855),  II,  138. 

43  See  Note  1  at  the  end  of  this  chapter. 


322  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  At  least  two  efforts 
toward  this  end  were  recorded  within  the  decade :  (i) 
an  effort  in  Congress  in  1853  ;44  and  (ii)  a  project  of 
Buchanan's  Secretary  of  the  Interior  (Jacob  Thomp- 
son of  Mississippi)  in  1859  to  place  Hon.  Thomas  Gr. 
Clemson  in  direct  charge  of  a  Bureau.45  But  although 
Clemson  acted  for  a  time  as  ' '  Superintendent  of  Agri- 
cultural Affairs"  in  the  Patent  Office,  neither  effort 
was  successful. 

Some  other  pieces  of  evidence  afford  further  indica- 
tion of  government  interest  in  the  problem  of  organi- 
zation.   In  1857  D.  J.  Browne  of  the  Patent  Office, 
the  result  of  a  trip  abroad  made  for  the  purpose  oJ 
investigating  certain  phases  of  European  agriculture, 
printed  a  report  in  which  he  described  public  methods 
of  encouraging  agriculture  in  Russia  and  Prussia,  an< 
gave  perhaps  the  earliest  careful  resume  of  what  th< 
United  States  government  had  done  up  to  that  time  for 
the    American   farmers,    together    with    a  -historica] 
sketch  of  American  agriculture  from  its  beginnings.4 
In  the  spring  of  the  next  year  the  House  Committe< 
on  Agriculture  was  considering  a  bill  which  provide< 
for  a  National  Board  of  Agriculture.47    In  1860  Clem- 
son, then  in  charge  as  superintendent  of  the  agricul- 

44  Journal  of  the  U.  S.  Agricultural  Society  for  1854,  II,  28. 

45  Quarterly  Journal  of  Agriculture  (January,  1860),  VII,  377.    Hid. 
(April,  1860),  VIII,  34,  51,  55-56,  169.   [This  is  the  later  title  of  tl 
organ  of  the  U.  S.  A.  Society.    See  Note  3  at  the  end  of  the  chapter.] 

46  Executive  Documents,  35  Cong.,  1  sess.  (1857-1858),  IV,  No.  30, 
1-50. 

47  Transactions    and    Monthly    Bulletin    of    the    U.    S.    Agricult 
Society  for  1858  (ed.  B.  P.  Poore),  March  Bulletin,  VI,  11. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     323 

tural  division  of  the  Patent  Office,  presented  in  his 
report  a  concise  statement  of  the  facts  about  agricul- 
tural departments,  bureaus,  and  boards  as  he  under- 
stood them  to  be  in  England,  France,  Spain,  Belgium, 
Austria,  Eussia,  and  Prussia.  His  division  of  the 
Patent  Office  he  did  not  hesitate  to  characterize  as  an 
"embryotic  organization, "  a  mere  expedient  which 
should  be  altered,  he  thought,  in  a  way  to  give  it  the 
independent  standing  of  a  Department.  Such  a 
Department,  he  declared,  ' '  should  know  no  section,  no 
latitude,  no  longitude.  It  should  be  subservient  to  no 
party  other  than  the  great  party  of  production. '  '48 

From  the  moment  of  its  organization  in  June,  1852, 
to  its  last  annual  meeting  of  any  consequence  in 
January,  1862,  the  United  States  Agricultural  Society 
recorded  itself  time  and  again  as  favorable  to  the 
establishment  of  a  Department  of  Agriculture  with  a 
Secretary  of  cabinet  rank  and  position  at  its  head. 
The  protagonist  of  a  Department  in  the  Society,  deter- 
mined, persistent,  and  never  allowing  any  opportunity 
for  the  presentation  of  his  favorite  view  to  be  lost,  was 
a  certain  Charles  B.  Calvert  of  Maryland.  Graduated 
at  the  University  of  Virginia  in  1827,  Calvert  had  been 
president  of  the  Maryland  Agricultural  Society,  and 
had  devoted  himself  heart  and  soul  to  the  promotion 
of  farming  interests.  Serving  his  state  in  the  legis- 
lature as  a  comparatively  young  man  for  brief  terms, 
he  was  finally  elected  a  Kepresentative  to  the  Thirty- 
seventh  Congress  (July  4,  1861-March  4,  1863)  where 

48  House  Executive  Documents,  36  Cong.,  2  sess.  (1860-1861),  No.  48, 
p.  11. 


324  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

he  acted  as  a  member  of  the  House  Committee  on  Agri- 
culture.   He  died  in  1864.49 

When,  in  1852,  the  business  committee  of  the  Society 
recommended  that  the  Society  should  work  for  the 
establishment  of  a  national  Department  or  Bureau  of 
Agriculture,  Calvert  at  once  opposed  the  bureau  ideal. 
To  the  attitude  of  Senator  Douglas  and  others  oppos- 
ing either  a  department  or  a  bureau,  on  the  ground 
that  either  would  provide  places  for  politicians,  and 
that  occupants  of  such  places  would  be  removed  at 
every  change  of  administration,  Calvert  replied  that 
he  "  would  like  to  have  a  politician,  a  Cabinet  Minister, 
at  the  head  of  agriculture.  If  this  were  the  case, 
politics  would  be  the  better  for  it."50  At  the  first 
annual  meeting  in  February,  1853,  he  gained,  after 
some  opposition,  the  unanimous  vote  of  the  Society  in 
favor  of  a  memorial  to  Congress  "to  establish  .  .  .  . 
a  Department  of  Agriculture,  the  head  of  which  .... 
shall  be  a  Cabinet  Officer. '  >51  The  next  year  he  opposed 
before  the  Society  a  bill,  then  under  consideration  by 
a  committee  of  Congress,  which  provided  for  a  bureau. 
Others  at  that  time  came  to  his  assistance,  notably  the 
eminent  chemist,  Professor  James  J.  Mapes.  "Talk 
of  an  Agricultural  Bureau, "  declared  Mapes,  "and 
what  would  it  amount  to?  He  had  no  notion  of  the 
farming  interest  of  the  country  being  sifted  down  to  a 
well-hole  at  the  bottom  of  a  Patent  Office An 

49  C.  Lanman,  Biographical  Annals  of  the  Civil  Government  of  the 
United  States  (Washington:  1876),  pp.  65-66. 

so  Journal  of  the  U.  S.  Agricultural  Society,  I,  13-18. 
si  Hid.,  I,  No.  2,  pp.  15  ff. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     325 

Agricultural  Department  is  absolutely  necessary. " 
For  the  second  time  the  Society  declared  itself  unani- 
mously for  a  Department.52  In  1855  Calvert  depre- 
cated further  efforts  to  gain  any  legislation  from  Con- 
gress. He  suggested  that  the  time  was  ripe  for  "the 
agriculturists  of  the  whole  country  to  meet  in  conven- 
tion, and  determine  for  themselves  what  legislation  is 
necessary  for  their  protection. '  '53  Impracticable  as  the 
idea  was,  it  was  no  more  so  than  the  proposition  of 
B.  B.  French  of  Washington,  D.  C.,  who  in  the  autumn 
of  the  same  year  propounded  as  a  solution  of  difficul- 
ties that  the  farmers  of  the  country  should  elect  the 
head  of  a  Department  of  Agriculture.54  "When  a 
Cabinet  Minister  represents  agriculture, ' '  said  Calvert 
in  1856,  "the  farmer  will  be  appreciated  by  the 
Government ....  until ....  such  a  representative  takes 
his  seat  in  the  Cabinet,  the  hope  ....  that  the  Govern- 
ment will  regard  agriculture  as  its  chief  bulwark  and 
cherish  its  advance  accordingly,  is  fallacious. ' '55 

In  1857,  and  again  in  1858,  President  Marshall  P. 
Wilder  of  the  Society  voiced  in  his  annual  addresses 
the  Calvert  view.  Once  more,  in  1857,  the  Society 
voted  in  accordance  with  this  view  to  memorialize 
Congress,  asking  for  a  Department  "with  a  Cabinet 
Minister  at  its  head. ' '  In  spite  of  the  financial  disturb- 
ance of  1857,  Wilder  believed  in  1858  that  the  time 
was  near  when  the  national  government  would  come 

52  Ibid.,  II,  28-29. 

53  Ibid.,  Ill,   17-18. 

54  Ibid.,  Ill,  179. 

55  Ibid.,  IV,  67. 


326  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

more  effectively  than  ever  to  the  aid  of  the  farming 
interests.56 

Notwithstanding  overshadowing  political  issues 
already  threatening  to  destroy  the  stability  of  the 
national  governmental  structure,  there  were  signs 
favorable  to  Wilder 's  hopeful  mood.  Congress  had 
appropriated  in  1857  $75,000  for  agriculture.  Morrill 
was  making  headway  with  his  Land  Bill  which,  if  suc- 
cessful, would  donate  millions  of  acres  to  the  states  to 
provide  colleges  for  the  benefit  of  agriculture  and  the 
mechanic  arts.  A  committee  of  Congress  had  under 
advisement  the  project  of  a  National  Board  of  Agri- 
culture. In  1859  an  Advisory  Board  of  Agriculturists 
met  at  the  request  of  the  House  Committee  on  Agri- 
culture and,  after  discussion,  made  a  report  which 
recommended  the  creation  of  a  Department  with  a 
cabinet  officer  at  its  head.  This  report  was  apparently 
suppressed  in  1860,  its  specific  recommendation  having 
become  known  and  having  aroused  in  some  parts  of  the 
country  opposition.57  The  sectional  issues  loomed 
large  and  were  inevitably  reflected  in  the  United  States 
Agricultural  Society,  tending  to  divide  the  members 
into  groups.  But  Calvert  held  persistently  to  his  origi- 
nal views,  and  at  the  four  annual  meetings,  from  1859 
to  1862,  was  regularly  recorded  as  urging  his  favorite 
project.58 

At  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Society  in  1860,  Joseph 

56  Journal,  V,  24,  29,  66.     Transactions,  etc.,  for  1858,  VI,  10. 

57  Quarterly  Journal  of  Agriculture,  VIII,  36-39.     Other  facts  in  the 
paragraph  may  be  discovered  in  the  Society 's  periodical,  VI -VII,  passim. 

&  Journal    of  Agriculture,  VII,    18.      Quarterly    Journal,   VIII,   55. 
National  Intelligencer,  January  12,  1861.    Journal,  X,  21  ff. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     327 

C.  G.  Kennedy,  famous  in  his  day  as  a  statistician,  and 
superintendent  of  the  eighth  census,  left  an  interesting 
estimate  on  record  as  to  the  influence  of  the  United 
States  Agricultural  Society.  "Having  resided  at  this 
capital  ever  since  the  period  of  your  organization  as  a 
society, "  he  said,  "and  having  carefully  observed  the 
effects  of  its  influence  upon  the  Government  and  the 
country,  I  can  say  from  personal  knowledge  that, 
unknown  perhaps  to  the  most  prominent  and  useful 
members  of  the  association,  and  to  those  upon  whom 
its  effects  have  fallen,  the  society  has  been  silently  but 
surely  working  a  revolution  in  the  feelings  of  those 
charged  with  the  direction  of  public  affairs,  and  each 
successive  administration  appears  to  realize  more  and 
more  the  claims  of  agriculture  upon  its  attention,  and 
the  necessity  of  complying  with  the  general  demand 
for  official  recognition  of  the  importance  of  an  interest 

heretofore  much  neglected The  only  question  of 

doubt  appears  now  to  be,  not  the  propriety  of  doing 
something,  but  how  in  a  just  and  liberal  spirit  can  the 
power  of  the  ruling  authority  ....  be  best  exerted  to 
lend  a  helping  hand  to  the  support  and  elevation  of  the 
great  mainstay  of  our  national  prosperity."  It  was 
Kennedy's  view  that  the  feeling  among  the  people  as 
well  as  in  government  circles  would  go  on  gathering 
strength  "until  we  have  what  other  Governments  have 
found  it  necessary  to  organize,  a  department  devoted 
principally  to  the  interests  of  agriculture. '  '59 

Almost  the  last  vigorous  utterance  from  an  organi- 
zation whose  work  was  practically  over  in  1862  came 

59  Journal,  VIII,  31-32. 


328  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

from  President  W.  B.  Hubbard's  address  at  the  annual 
meeting  of  that  year  in  which  he  urged  the  farmers  of 
the  country  to  give  their  Representatives  in  Congress 
no  rest  * '  until  a  Secretary  of  Agriculture,  representing 
your  combined  interests,  has  a  potential  voice  in  the 
Cabinet  of  your  President  of  the  United  States."60 
Just  two  days  before  this  address  a  bill  had  been  intro- 
duced into  the  House  of  Representatives,  on  January 
7,  providing  for  the  establishment  of  an  Agricultural 
and  Statistical  Bureau.  After  being  read  twice,  it  was 
referred  to  the  House  Committee  on  Agriculture, 
which  included  in  its  personnel  Charles  B.  Calvert  of 
Maryland.61 

V 

David  P.  Holloway  of  Indiana,  Commissioner  of 
Patents  in  1861,  had  a  long  series  of  considerations  in 
his  report  for  that  year  which  led  him  by  a  roundabout 
way  to  the  conclusion  that  Congress  ought  to  create  a 
Secretary  of  Agriculture,  Commerce,  and  Manufac- 
tures, or  (in  other  words)  a  Minister  of  Industry.  His 
first  idea  had  been  to  recommend  merely  a  Commis- 
sioner of  Agriculture,  impressed  as  he  was  by  the  fact 
that  three-fourths  of  the  people  were  engaged  in  farm- 
ing. But  almost  everybody  else,  he  reflected,  was  a 
laborer  of  some  sort.  Such  foreign  countries  as 
France,  Italy,  and  Prussia  had  succeeded  in  combining 
Agriculture,  Commerce,  and  Manufactures  under  one 
headship,  thus  gaining  economy,  unity,  and  efficiency 

60  Journal,  X,  13-14. 

^  Congressional  Globe,  37  Cong.,  2  sess.  (1861-1862),  Pt.  I,  pp.  218, 
855-856. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     329 

of  administration.  Why  should  the  United  States  not 
do  so?  He  failed  to  detect  any  constitutional  difficul- 
ties in  the  way  of  such  a  project.  Let  the  proposed 
Secretary  or  Minister  of  Industry  be  placed  over  a 
1 1 Department  of  the  Productive  Arts."  "We  are," 
he  wrote,  "in  the  midst  of  a  great  revolution,  not  only 
social  and  political,  but  industrial  and  economical. 
Thus  far  the  best  efforts  of  the  great  minds  of  the 
nation  have  necessarily  been  directed  mainly  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  former;  but  the  day  is  fast  coming 
when  the  latter  will  command  the  attention  that  is  its 
due."  First  of  all,  he  knew,  the  rebellion  must  be 
crushed  out.  Its  political  consequences  alone  will  call 
for  the  wisest  statesmanship.  But  there  are  to  be  eco- 
nomic consequences.  There  will  be  a  vast  debt  of 
many  millions  which  will  weigh  heavily  on  all  the  pro- 
ductive interests.  "These  interests,"  he  concluded, 
"must  be  recognized,  fostered,  and  organized,  that 
they  may  be  equal  to  the  burden  and  the  extinguish- 
ment of  this  debt.  "62 

Holloway's  view  was  more  advanced  than  that  of  his 
superior,  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  Caleb  B.  Smith, 
as  presented  in  his  annual  report  of  November  30, 1861. 
"I  feel  constrained,"  said  Smith,  "to  recommend  the 
establishment  of  a  Bureau  of  Agriculture  and  Statis- 
tics, the  need  whereof  is  not  only  realized  by  the  heads 
of  departments,  but  is  felt  by  every  intelligent  legis- 
lator."63 Smith's  suggestion  would  seem  to  be  the  true 

62  Senate  Executive  Documents,  37  Cong.,  2  sess.  (1861-1862),  V,  No. 
39,  pp.  5-10,  passim. 

63  Senate  Documents,  37  Cong.,  2  sess.  (1861-1862),  I,  No.  1.    Report 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  pp.  451-452. 


330  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

source  of  Lincoln's  recommendation  to  Congress  in  his 
annual  message,  three  days  later,  of  an  "agricultural 
and  statistical  bureau. "  The  matter  is  chiefly  inter- 
esting as  the  first  recommendation  of  an  agricultural 
bureau  in  a  presidential  message  since  Taylor 's  in 
1849.  It  brought  the  subject  into  prominence.  It  was 
otherwise  not  notable,  for  the  idea  of  some  such  organi- 
zation had  been  familiar  enough  to  Congressmen  and 
others  for  years  past.  Indeed,  there  were  doubtless 
not  a  few  who  would  have  agreed  heartily  with  Sena- 
tor Foster  of  Connecticut  when,  a  few  months  later,  he 
declared  that  he  would  not  have  chosen  this  time  to 
create  either  a  Bureau  or  a  Department.  "We  are 
engaged, "  he  remarked,  "in  a  struggle  for  national 
existence,  and  we  need  all  our  energies  to  be  directed 
to  that  object  and  to  that  alone."64 

But  action  on  the  subject,  to  which  Lincoln  had  once 
more  drawn  public  attention,  was  soon  called  for,  inas- 
much as  several  bills  providing  for  an  agricultural 
organization  were  introduced  into  Congress.  Between 
January  7,  1862,  the  date  of  the  introduction  of  a  bill 
providing  for  an  Agricultural  and  Statistical  Bureau, 
and  February  11  following,  the  House  Committee  on 
Agriculture  determined  to  recommend,  not  the  plan  of 
a  Bureau  which  was  Lincoln's  suggestion,  but  that  of 
a  Department  in  charge  of  a  Commissioner  who  should 
be  appointed  by  the  President.  The  bill  was  disposed 
of  in  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  with  great  speed  on 
February  17,  winning  almost  the  unanimous  approval 

64  Globe,  op.  cit.,  Pt.  I,  p.  1756.    Messages  and  Papers,  VI,  52-53. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     331 

of  that  body.65  The  way  had  been  carefully  prepared 
by  means  of  a  report  signed  by  all  the  members  of 
the  Committee,  a  report  which  contained  an  admirable 
sketch  of  administrative  progress  toward  the  object 
of  the  bill  since  the  time  *  when  Ellsworth  had  been 
placed  in  charge  of  the  Patent  Office  by  Jackson  in  1836. 
"It  may  be  asked, "  wrote  the  Committee,  "why  not 
have  a  minister  of  commerce,  of  manufactures,  as  well 
as  a  minister  of  agriculture  1  In  reply  to  this,  the  Com- 
mittee would  state  that  in  most  countries  these  inter- 
ests are  represented  in  the  Government  by  a  distinct 
bureau  or  minister.  But  there  is  this  also  to  be  con- 
sidered. The  commercial  and  manufacturing  interests 
being  locally  limited  and  centralized,  can  easily  combine 
and  make  themselves  felt  in  the  Halls  of  legislation  and 

in  the  Executive  Departments  of  the  Government 

New  York  and  Lowell  have  often  more  immediate  influ- 
ence in  directing  and  molding  material  legislation  than 
all  the  farming  interest  in  the  country.  Agriculture 
clad  in  homespun  is  very  apt  to  be  elbowed  aside  by 
capital  attired  in  ten-dollar  Yorkshire.  Every  govern- 
ment in  Europe  ....  has  an  agricultural  department 
connected  with  it. ' m 

Such  comments  suggested  at  the  very  outset  the 
question  of  class  legislation,  and  indirectly  the  consti- 
tutionality of  the  measure.  Congress,  however,  was 
peculiarly  free  at  the  time  from  extremists  of  all  sorts. 
There  were  no  states-rights  advocates  to  rise  up,  as 
Calhoun  and  Mason  had  done  in  the  discussions  of  1849 

65  Globe,  p.  857.    The  vote  was  122  yeas  and  only  7  nays. 
td.,  pp.  855-856. 


332  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

over  the  creation  of  a  Department  of  the  Interior,  and 
object  to  the  erection  of  an  agricultural  bureau  or  a 
department  as  a  step  taken  by  the  central  government 
to  exercise  overbearing  or  unwarrantable  dominance 
over  the  states.  That  fear  found  at  any  rate  no 
spokesman,  although  Senator  Cowan  at  a  later  time 
expressed  his  belief  that  the  bill  was  unconstitutional.67 

Some  difficulties  presented  themselves  in  the  Senate. 
These  were,  however,  of  an  adjustable  kind.  The  prob- 
lems propounded  concerned  chiefly  the  relations  of  the 
proposed  organization :  Should  there  be  a  Bureau  in  the 
Interior  Department?  Or,  on  the  other  hand,  should 
there  be  a  separate  Department  with  a  cabinet  officer 
at  its  head!  Efforts  for  both  Bureau  and  Department 
could  be  cited  from  the  immediate  past.  The  arrange- 
ment of  the  pending  bill  was  something  of  a  departure 
from  precedent. 

The  petition  of  the  United  States  Agricultural 
Society,  asking  for  an  independent  Department,  was 
referred  to  in  the  Senate  discussion.  The  president  of 
that  Society  had  himself  been  before  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee to  urge  the  creation  of  a  Department,  convinced, 
however,  that  it  should  be  disconnected  "from  any  of 
the  Departments  of  the  Government  whose  chief  was 
appointed  from  political  considerations.  "M  This  point 
of  view,  together  with  opposition  against  arranging  for 
a  Secretary  who  should  go  at  once  into  the  Cabinet, 
affords  the  probable  clue  to  the  result  that  at  the  head 
of  the  new  Department  there  was  placed  a  Commis- 

67  Globe,  op.  cit.,  pp.  2014-2017,  passim. 
<%Ilid.,  p.  2015. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     333 

sioner.  Like  much  legislation  that  is  enduring,  the 
arrangement  was  a  compromise — an  attempt  to  satisfy 
in  part  the  more  advanced  advocates  such  as  Calvert, 
and  the  conservatives  who  were,  at  least  in  administra- 
tive circles,  numerous. 

The  objection  to  a  cabinet  officer,  although  voiced  but 
once  in  the  House  by  John  E.  Phelps  of  Missouri,69 
drew  out  much  comment  in  the  Senate.  i  '  If  we  make  it 
a  Department/7  argued  Senator  Foster,  " there  will  be 
a  necessity  for  a  greater  amount  of  expenditure ;  for  the 
head  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  will  naturally 
consider  himself  somewhat  slighted  if  he  does  not  have 
a  salary  equal  in  amount  to  that  of  other  heads  .... 
with  a  seat  in  the  Cabinet. '  '70  Senator  John  P.  Hale 
of  New  Hampshire  asserted  that  "the  great  anxiety  to 
have  agriculture  elevated  to  a  Department  ....  and 
finally  to  a  seat  in  the  Cabinet,  for  that  is  what  it  looks 
to,  does  not  come  from  the  men  ....  that  lean  upon 
their  plow-handles;  but  it  comes  from  the  men  who 
want  them  to  take  their  hands  off  the  plow-handle  and 

vote  for  them  at  the  ballot  box Now  there  are 

seven  heads  of  Departments,  with  places  in  the  Cabinet 
....  this  Agricultural  Department  will  soon  furnish 
another."71  "I  know  people  shake  their  heads/* 
observed  Senator  J.  F.  Simmons  of  Rhode  Island,  one 
of  the  chief  spokesmen  for  the  bill.  "  Senators  seem  to 
be  determined  to  regard  this  measure  as  one  proposing 
•  an  independent  Department  headed  by  and  by  with  a 

69  Ibid.,  p.  2098. 
wibid.,  p.  1756. 
n  Ibid.,  p.  2014. 


334  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

cabinet  officer.  I  do  not  know  of  any  possible  reason 
for  apprehending  it."72 

Signed  by  President  Lincoln  on  May  15,  1862,  the 
bill  became  law.  Hon.  Isaac  Newton  of  Pennsylvania, 
previously  in  charge  of  the  agricultural  division  of  the 
Patent  Office,  was  named  as  Commissioner — the  first 
of  a  series  of  six  such  officials — and  entered  upon  his 
duties  on  July  1  following. 

The  sources  of  law-making  opinion  are  often  not 
easy  to  discover.  But  the  evidence  thus  far  gathered 
in  this  chapter  has  missed  its  object,  if  it  does  not  indi- 
cate that  the  conviction  which  gained  possession  of 
Congress  in  1862  and  created  an  independent  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture  was  the  result  of  hard  effort, 
persistent  agitation,  and  widespread  expression  of 
views  favorable  to  some  such  measure.  In  fact,  the 
movement  of  thought  had  for  years  been  directed  to 
this  end,  influenced  much,  as  of  course  it  was,  by  the 
rapid  growth  of  the  country  in  population,  resources, 
and  wealth.  The  time  had  come  when  a  Department 
of  Agriculture  could  be  exacted  from  Congress,  not- 
withstanding the  obvious  fact  that  our  political  struc- 
ture was  being  shaken  to  its  foundations. 


VI 


The  Fiftieth  Congress  (December  5,  1887-March  3, 
1889)  was  deluged  with  petitions  and  memorials  asking 
that  the  grade  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  be 
raised  to  " executive"  rank  in  order  that  a  Secretary 

72  Globe,  op.  eit.,  p.  2015. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     335 

might  thus  be  obtained  to  represent  farming  interests 
in  the  Cabinet.  Many  bills  were  drafted  in  response 
to  such  appeals.  The  agitation,  however,  was  by  no 
means  new.  For  a  period  of  many  years  Congress 
had  been  the  recipient  of  similar  petitions  and  appeals. 
Bills  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  such  demands  had 
heretofore  been  prepared;  they  had  occasionally 
passed  the  ordeal  of  one  or  the  other  House,  but  were 
eventually  lost  through  opposition.  The  so-called 
Hatch  bill  which  was  finally  passed  in  a  modified  form 
and  signed  by  President  Cleveland  in  February,  1889, 
had  run  a  long  course  under  various  guises  since 
February,  1881.  In  brief,  the  problem  of  raising  the 
grade  of  the  Agricultural  Department  had  occupied  at 
times  the  attention  of  several  Congresses  for  a  period 
of  fully  eight  years.73 

By  the  spring  of  1888  there  was  a  very  widespread 
impression,  clearly  recognized  in  Congress,  that  some- 
thing ought  to  be  done  to  satisfy  the  persistent  efforts 
on  the  part  of  farmers'  associations  to  get  "repre- 
sented in  the  Cabinet "  of  the  President.  The  more 
conservative  Congressmen  were  still  inclined  to  think 
that  an  Agricultural  Bureau  would  serve  all  important 
purposes.  Accordingly  they  protested  mildly  against 
the  movement  as  likely  to  lead  to  paternalism  and 
centralization.  The  most  serious  objections  were 
voiced  by  Senators  0.  H.  Platt  of  Connecticut,  and 

73  Congressional  Record,  XIX,  4479,  9303.  Bepresentative  W.  H. 
Hatch  of  Missouri  on  October  8,  1888,  related  the  history  of  various 
measures  from  February  7,  1881,  their  starting  point  in  the  third  session 
of  the  46th  Congress. 


336  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

William  E.  Chandler  of  New  Hampshire,  the  latter 
once  Secretary  of  the  Navy  in  President  Arthur 's 
Cabinet.  "If  a  new  department  is  to  be  created, " 
argued  Platt  on  June  4,  1888,  "it  ought  to  be  a  depart- 
ment which  should  embrace  within  its  purview  all  of 
the  great  business  interests  of  the  country.  There  is 
no  reason, "  he  continued,  "why  those  people  inter- 
ested in  agriculture  should  be  represented  in  the  Cabi- 
net, and  those  who  are  interested  in  manufactures,  or 
mining,  or  transportation,  or  commerce,  should  not 
be."  Labor,  from  Platt 's  standpoint,  could  on  no 
account  be  overlooked.  Several  speakers,  following 
out  the  same  line  of  thought,  were  inclined  to  favor  a 
new  department  which  should  be  termed  a  "Depart- 
ment of  National  Industries."74 

Senator  Chandler,  though  favoring  in  some  ways 
the  movement  for  an  executive  Department  of  Agri- 
culture, reminded  his  colleagues  of  an  argument 
against  it  that  he  had  urged  some  years  before.  * '  The 
present  members  of  the  President's  Cabinet,"  he 
declared  on  September  20,  ' '  are  at  the  head  of  political 
departments  of  the  Government.  They  are  all  politi- 
cal ;  they  are  all  in  some  way  connected  with  and  essen- 
tial to  the  political  government  of  the  country.  But 
agriculture  is  in  no  sense  an  essential  of  political 
government.  The  fostering  of  agriculture  is  not  a 
necessary  part  of  government."  Still  further  to  illus- 
trate his  position,  Chandler  remarked  that  the  Depart- 
ments of  State,  Treasury,  War,  Navy,  Justice,  Inte- 
rior, and  the  Postal  Establishment  were  "political." 

74  Eecord,  XIX,  4876,  8686  ff.,  8804  ff. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     337 

He  was  convinced  that  the  creation  of  an  executive 
Department  of  Agriculture  would  be  a  distinct  breach 
in  tradition — an  opening  for  many  dangerous  possibil- 
ities in  the  future.  Where  the  process  of  executive 
1 '  establishments ' '  might  end,  were  the  farmers  to  gain 
their  object,  no  man  could  say.75 

These  views  of  Senators  Platt  and  Chandler,  while 
not  essentially  new,  were  forcibly  presented.  Chand- 
ler's position  was  clearly  that  of  a  constitutional 
lawyer,  and  was  based  upon  the  technical  language  of 
the  law.  In  the  eyes  of  some  of  the  stricter  construc- 
tionists  in  the  Senate  it  appeared  reasonable.  Platt 
was  viewing  the  problem  from  a  broader  standpoint, 
interested  in  the  possible  claims  of  all  classes,  and 
somewhat  fearful  of  anything  that  had  the  semblance 
of  class  legislation.  However,  Congress  as  a  body 
failed  to  be  determined  or  concluded  by  them. 

Senator  Plumb  of  Kansas  did  not  hesitate  to  answer 
Chandler.  He  refused  to  see  any  reasonable  distinc- 
tion between  "political"  and  " non-political"  depart- 
ments. The  Cabinet  did  not,  he  contended,  cover  "the 
entire  scope  of  proper  administration."  "We  have," 
he  continued,  "now  a  Department  of  Labor.  Experi- 
ence with  that  department  may  prove  after  a  time  that 
it  is  desirable  to  make  the  person  who  presides  over 
that  department  also  a  secretary  ....  while  I  can 
appreciate  ....  the  feeling  which  the  Senator  from 
•New  Hampshire  has  derived  no  doubt  from  his  expe- 
rience in  the  Cabinet  of  President  Arthur,  that  when 
you  have  got  a  good  thing  it  is  well  to  have  it  at  pretty 

75  Hid.,  pp.  8778,  8801  ff. 


338  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

close  quarters  and  distributed  among  a  very  few 
persons,  to  make  the  crowd  as  small  and  therefore  as 
select  as  possible,  yet  that  idea  is  opposed  to  the 
republican  theory  of  government. "  The  only  ques- 
tion— the  real  question,  as  he  conceived  the  problem- 
was  simply  whether  the  agricultural  interest  "is  of 
sufficient  importance  in  itself  ....  to  warrant  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States  in  practically  requiring  the 
President  to  take  into  his  councils  ....  the  person  who 
presides  over  the  Department  of  Agriculture."76 

There  were  occasional  expressions  of  opinion  to  the 
effect  that  the  Cabinet  was  already  large  enough. 
"Perhaps  in  a  multitude  of  counsellors  there  is 
safety,"  said  Senator  Platt,  "but,"  he  added,  ".;... 
the  chief  executive  office  is  one  which  a  great  many 
advisers  will  only  hamper."77  There  were  various 
references  in  the  long  course  of  the  debates  to  the 
practices  of  foreign  countries  in  administering  to  the 
needs  of  the  farming  classes.  But  these  can  have  had 
little  or  no  influence  on  the  final  solution  of  the 
matter.78  The  second  session  of  the  Fiftieth  Congress 
witnessed  the  settlement  of  the  subject.  The  President 
approved  the  bill  on  February  9,  1889.  The  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture  was  raised  to  the  grade  of  an 
Executive  Department  with  a  Secretary  over  it  of 
cabinet  rank.  On  February  11  President  Cleveland 
nominated  Hon.  Norman  J.  Colman  of  Missouri,  who 
had  acted  as  Commissioner  of  Agriculture  since  April, 

KEecord,  XIX,  8805. 

ill-bid.,  p.  4876. 

78  Ibid.,  pp.  4480  ff.,  8803. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     339 

1885,  to  the  new  Secretaryship,  and  Colman's  nomina- 
tion was  confirmed  by  the  Senate  on  February  13.79 

Once  more,  as  in  1862,  the  desired  end  was  attained 
through  force  of  many  circumstances  aided  by  per- 
sistent and  well-directed  popular  effort  and  thought. 
Although  the  final  result  was  not  equivalent  to  a 
National  Board  of  Agriculture  which  Washington  and 
his  contemporaries  a  century  earlier  had  wished  to 
establish,  the  Department  of  Agriculture  was  intended 
to  accomplish  the  work  of  such  a  Board,  and  very 
much  besides. 


XX,  1398,  1399,  1413,  1764.  Mosher,  Executive  Register, 
p.  251.  By  a  curious  coincidence  the  British  Board  of  Agriculture  dates 
from  the  same  year,  52  &  53  Viet.,  c.  30. 


NOTES 

1.    APPROPRIATIONS  FOR  AGRICULTURE  :  1850-1865 ;  1900- 
1912: 

The  following  figures  are  taken  from  a  much  more 
elaborate  table  which  will  be  found  on  page  91  of  Mr. 
Charles  H.  Greathouse's  "Historical  Sketch  of  the 
U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture:  its  Objects  and 
Present  Organization "  printed  as  Bulletin  3  of  the 
United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  (Washing- 
ton: 1907,  pp.  97).  Through  the  courtesy  of  Mr. 
Greathouse,  I  have  obtained  and  added  the  annual 
figures  through  1912. 


FISCAL  AMOUNT   APPRO- 

YEAR  PRIATED 

1850  $  5,500.00 

1851  5,500.00 

1852  5,000.00 

1853  5,000.00 

1854  10,000.00 

1855  50,000.00 

1856  30,000.00 

1857  75,000.00* 

1858  63,500.00 

1859  60,000.00 

1860  40,000.00 

1861  60,000.00 

1862  64,000.00 

1863  80,000.00 

1864  199,770.00 

1865  112,304.00 

*  Including  deficiency  appropriation. 


FISCAL                   AMOUNT   APPRO- 
YEAR  PRIATED 

1900 $  3,006,022.00 

1901 3,304,265.97 

1902 3,922,780.51 

1903 5,015,846.00 

1904 5,025,024.01 

1905 6,094,540.00 

1906 7,175,690.00 

1907 9,932,940.00 

1908 9,447,290.00 

1909 11,672,106.00 

1910 12,995,036.00 

1911 13,487,636.00 

1912 16,900,016.00 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     341 

The  annual  appropriations  were  increased  to  upwards 
of  $1,000,000  in  1888.  They  have  ranged  from  about 
$3,000,000  in  1900  to  nearly  $17,000,000  in  1912, 
steadily  increasing  during  the  period,  except  for  a 
very  trifling  falling  off  in  1908. 

2.     LAST  MEETING  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  AGBICULTURAL 
SOCIETY  IN  1881 : 

In  a  paper  contributed  to  the  Annual  Eeport  of  the 
Commissioner  of  Agriculture  for  1866  (pp.  525-526), 
the  curious  reader  will  find  a  statement  by  Ben :  Perley 
Poore  about  the  Society  as  it  then  existed.  The  state- 
ment is  given  in  the  course  of  a  sketchy  "History  of 
the  Agriculture  of  the  United  States. ' '  What  seems  to 
have  been  the  last  meeting  of  the  Society  was  recorded 
in  a  pamphlet,  now  very  rare,  entitled  "Proceedings 
of  the  29th  Annual  Meeting  of  the  United  States  Agri- 
cultural Society,  January  12,  1881 "  (Washington: 
1881.  Pp.  24).  A  copy  of  this  pamphlet  may  be  seen 
in  the  Library  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  in 
Washington.  The  author  was  Major  B.  P.  Poore,  who 
was  first  appointed  secretary  of  the  Society  in  1856. 

It  appears  that  a  mere  handful  of  aged  members 
attended  the  meeting  held  in  the  parlor  of  the  Ebbitt 
House.  Hon.  John  Merryman  of  Maryland  presided, 
while  Major  Poore  acted  as  secretary,  first  reading  the 
minutes  of  the  twenty-eighth  annual  meeting.  Presi- 
dent Merryman  reviewed  the  early  history  of  the 
Society,  dwelling  with  special  pride  on  the  fact  that  it 
was  the  only  "National  Agricultural  Association  ever 
chartered  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States" 


342  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

(April  19, 1860),  and  reflecting  that  it  was  a  realization 
of  the  National  Board  of  Agriculture  recommended  by 
George  Washington.  Moreover,  he  took  pride  in  the 
fact  that  the  Society  had  urged  the  establishment  of 
a  Department  of  Agriculture  "  until  the  desired  result 
was  attained."  The  record  thus  continues: 

During  the  war  the  officers  and  members  of  the  United 
States  Agricultural  Society  were  estranged.  Some  wore  blue 
uniforms  and  some  gray,  and  were  conspicuous  on  hard- 
fought  fields  or  languished  in  military  prisons.  The  society 
was,  however,  kept  alive,  and  the  annual  meetings  prescribed 
by  the  constitution  were  regularly  held.  Messrs.  Tilghman 
of  Maryland ;  Hubbard  of  Ohio ;  French  and  Corcoran  of  the 
District  of  Columbia;  and  Frederick  Smyth  of  New  Hamp- 
shire were  successively  chosen  presidents.  The  Secretary  was 
annually  re-elected,  and  on  the  death  of  the  Treasurer,  Mr. 
Wm.  M.  French  of  New  Hampshire,  now  a  sojourner  at  Wash- 
ington, was  chosen. 

Asked  what  the  future  of  the  organization  should  be, 
the  members  indicated  their  desire  to  continue  it. 
Merryman  was  named  as  president.  Vice-presidents 
to  the  number  of  forty-three  were  selected  from  most 
of  the  states,  among  them  being  Alexander  H. 
Stephens  of  Georgia,  Cassius  M.  Clay  of  Kentucky, 
Dr.  G.  B.  Loring  of  Massachusetts,  and  General  Burn- 
side  of  Rhode  Island.  A  resolution  of  congratulation 
was  framed  to  be  sent  to  Hon.  Marshall  P.  Wilder,  then 
living,  and  regarded  as  the  founder  of  the  Society. 
"The  meeting  was  not  largely  attended,"  commented 
Secretary  Poore,  "as  no  new  annual  or  life  members 
have  been  admitted  since  1860,  and  those  who  joined 
before  that  time  are  generally  too  far  advanced  in  life 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     343 

to  go  far  from  their  homes.  It  was,  in  fact,  a  re-union 
of  veteran  agriculturists,  and  the  meeting  of  old 
friends  and  co-laborers  was  cordial  and  interesting. ' ' 
It  was  voted  to  arrange  a  program  for  the  thirtieth 
annual  meeting  which  should  be  held  at  the  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture  on  Wednesday,  January  11,  1882, 
at  ten  a.m.  There  is  no  record  of  any  such  meeting.* 
The  simple  truth  seems  to  be  that  the  puny  gathering 
of  1881  was  the  last  feeble  but  dignified  gasp  of  an 
organization  that  had  been  in  its  day,  before  the  Civil 
War,  powerful  and  really  effective. 

3.  THE  PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  AGEI- 
CULTUKAL  SOCIETY: 

These  consisted  of  ten  volumes.  The  only  set — not 
quite  complete — that  I  have  ever  seen  is  in  the  Library 
of  Congress. 

Volume  I.     The  Journal  of  the  United  States  Agricultural 

Society.     Washington:  1852  ff. 
No.  1.    August,  1852.    Pp.  144.    Introd.  signed  by  Daniel 

Lee,  July,  1852.     (Lee  was  at  one  time  editor  of  the 

"Genesee  Farmer"  of  Rochester,  N.  Y.) 
No.  2.  Pp.  160.  Ed.  by  J.  C.  G.  Kennedy. 
Nos.  3-4.  Pp.  279.  Ed.  by  Wm.  S.  King. 

Volume  II.  The  Journal  of  the  United  States  Agricultural 
Society  for  1854.  Ed.  by  William  S.  King.  Boston :  1855. 
Pp.  256. 

*  On  July  26,  1881,  the  Commissioner  of  Agriculture,  G.  B.  Loring, 
sent  an  invitation  to  a  large  number  of  agriculturists  over  the  country 
to  assemble  in  Washington,  D.  C.,  at  a  convention  in  January,  1882.  See 
Proceedings  of  a  Convention  of  Agriculturists,  held  in  the  Department  of 
Agriculture,  January  10  to  18.  Washington:  1882.  Pp.  204. 


344  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Volume  III.  The  Journal  of  the  United  States  Agricultural 
Society  for  1855.  Ed.  by  W.  S.  King.  Boston:  1856. 
Pp.  263. 

Volume  IV.  The  Journal  of  the  United  States  Agricultural 
Society  for  1856.  Ed.  by  Wm.  S.  King.  Boston :  1857. 
This  consists  of  Pt.  I,  pp.  82  (Boston:  1856)  and  pp.  272. 

Volume  V.  The  Journal  of  the  United  States  Agricultural 
Society  for  1857.  Ed.  by  Ben :  Perley  Poore.  Washing- 
ton: 1858.  Pp.  282. 

Volume  VI.  Transactions  and  Monthly  Bulletin  of  the 
United  States  Agricultural  Society  for  1858.  Ed.  by 
Ben :  Perley  Poore.  Washington :  1859.  Pp.  104. 
The  "Monthly  Bulletin"  consisted  of  11  nos.  (February- 
December,  inclusive).  The  number  for  August  is  wanting 
in  the  volume  in  the  Library  of  Congress.  The  others 
contain  8  pages  each  except  the  number  for  November, 
which  has  12  pages. 

Volume  VII.    The  Quarterly  Journal  of  Agriculture  (outside 
cover).     Inside  title:  The  Journal  of  Agriculture:  com- 
prising the  Transactions  and  the  Correspondence  of  the 
United  States  Agricultural  Society  for  1859.  Ed.  by  Ben : 
Perley  Poore,  Secretary,  Washington :  1860. 
This  volume  consisted  of  "Transactions,"  etc.,  pp.  88. 
No.  1.     April,  1859.    Wanting. 
No.  2.    July,  pp.  104. 
No.  3.     October,  pp.  92. 
No.  4.     January,  1860,  pp.  104. 

Volume  VIII.     The  Quarterly  Journal  of  Agriculture.     Ed. 
by  Ben:  Perley  Poore.    Washington:  1860. 
No.  1.     April,  1860. 
Nos.  2-4.     Wanting. 

Volume  IX.    Wanting. 


THE  SECRETARYSHIP  OF  AGRICULTURE     345 

Volume  X.     The  Quarterly  Journal  of  Agriculture.    Ed.  by 
Ben:  Perley  Poore.    "Washington:  1862. 
No.  1.     February,  1862,  pp.  76. 

No  other  numbers  to  be  found — probably  the  last  regular 
issue  of  the  periodical. 

There  is  a  stray  pamphlet  to  be  found  in  the  Library 
of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  entitled : 

Proceedings  of  the  29th  Annual  Meeting  of  the  United  States 
Agricultural  Society,  January  12,  1881.  Washington: 
1881.  Pp.  24. 

This  pamphlet  was  apparently  edited  by  Major  B.  P. 
Poore,  and  is  undoubtedly  the  last  actual  record  of  the 
remnant  of  the  Society.  For  some  account  of  the  meet- 
ing, see  above  Note  2. 

Attempts  to  discover  a  complete  file  of  the  periodical 
outside  Washington  have  proved  unsuccessful.  The 
Boston  Public  Library  contains  a  few  scattered  num- 
bers of  the  Journal. 


CHAPTER  XII 

ESTABLISHMENT    OF    THE    SECRETAEYSHIP    OF    COMMERCE 

AND   LABOR 

ON  February  14,  1903,  President  Roosevelt  signed 
the  bill  which  provided  for  the  creation  of  the 
Executive  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor  with  a 
Secretary  at  its  head  to  be  known  as  the  Secretary  of 
Commerce  and  Labor.1  Mr.  George  B.  Cortelyou  of 
New  York  was  at  once  appointed  to  the  new  Secretary- 
ship, entering  upon  his  duties  two  days  later  in  tem- 
porary headquarters  at  the  White  House.  In  the  fol- 
lowing June  permanent  offices  were  formally  opened  in 
the  New  Willard  Building  on  Fourteenth  Street  in 
Washington,  and  administrative  work  was  there  fully 
begun  on  July  I.2  The  Secretary  of  Commerce  and 
Labor  thus  became  the  ninth  member  of  the  Presi- 
dent's Cabinet. 

The  act  of  1903,  like  that  which  created  the  Depart- 
ment of  the  Interior  in  1849,  provided  in  part  for  a  re- 
adjustment of  administrative  burdens,  particularly 
those  resting  upon  the  shoulders  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury.  It  relieved  likewise  the  Secretaries  of 
State  and  of  the  Interior  of  some  of  their  duties,  co- 
ordinating, adjusting,  and  focusing  under  one  direction 
a  large  variety  of  work.  There  had  been  a  slow  but 
gradually  swelling  undercurrent  of  popular  opinion 

1  32  Statutes  at  Large,  pp.  825  ff. 

2  Organisation  and  Law  of  the  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor 
(Washington:  1904.     Document  No.  13),  p.  22. 


COMMERCE  AND  LABOR  347 

and  effort  making  for  some  such  organization  for 
many  years,  certainly  traceable  with  some  degree  of 
clearness  since  the  close  of  the  Civil  War.  Numerous 
circumstances  had  aided  the  movement.  Problems  of 
commercial  regulation  had  confronted  the  national 
government  from  the  beginning.  Notwithstanding  the 
fact  that  local  organizations  of  craftsmen  can  be  dis- 
covered as  far  back  in  American  history  as  the  latter 
part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  large  national  labor 
organizations  did  not  assume  the  proportion  of  a 
momentous  and  compelling  national  factor  demanding 
recognition  in  government  administration  until  after 
the  Civil  War. 


The  problem  of  establishing  satisfactory  trade  regu- 
lations with  foreign  countries  and  between  the  states 
was  at  the  very  foundation  of  the  movement  which 
forced  a  re-organization  of  the  national  form  of  gov- 
ernment in  1787  and  led  to  the  general  acceptance  of 
the  Constitution  in  the  following  year.  The  problem 
was  carefully  considered  and  discussed  in  many  of  its 
phases  during  the  formative  period  of  the  government. 
It  came  prominently  forward  in  the  sessions  of  the 
Philadelphia  Convention.  In  Gouverneur  Morris's 
plan  for  a  Council  of  State  as  presented  to  the  Con- 
vention on  August  20,  arrangement  was  there  made 
for  a  "secretary  of  commerce  and  finance. "  When, 
however,  the  plan  had  passed  the  ordeal  of  committee 
discussion,  no  such  officer  appeared — there  was  to  be 


348  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

simply  a  secretary  of  finance.3  A  few  years  later,  in 
Morris's  " Notes  on  the  Form  of  a  Constitution  for 
France, "  a  "minister  of  commerce "  was  mentioned.4 
The  Federalist  revealed  the  interest  of  both  Hamilton 
and  Madison  in  the  general  problem.5  Among  many 
suggestions  of  the  period  it  is  worth  while  to  call 
attention  to  two — those  of  Pelagian  Webster  and 
Alexander  Hamilton. 

Pelatiah  Webster,  out  of  his  mercantile  experience, 
and  because  of  a  natural  taste  for  speculating  over  the 
solution  of  various  industrial  problems,  afforded  his 
readers  sundry  reflections  on  the  subject  of  govern- 
ment regulation  of  trade.  Referring  in  1783  to  mer- 
chants and  manufacturers  as  a  class,  he  wrote:  "I 
could  wish  that  Congress  might  have  the  benefit  of  that 
extensive  and  important  information,  which  this  body 
of  men  are  very  capable  of  laying  before  them  .... 
the  merchants  are  not  only  qualified  to  give  the  fullest 
and  most  important  information  to  our  supreme  legis- 
lature, concerning  the  state  of  our  trade  ....  but  are 
also  the  most  likely  to  do  it  fairly  and  truly  and  to 
forward  ....  every  measure  which  operates  to  the 

convenience  and  benefit  of  our  commerce I 

therefore  humbly  propose  ....  that  they  shall  be  per- 
mitted to  form  a  chamber  of  commerce,  and  [that] 
their  advice  to  Congress  be  demanded  and  admitted 

3  Elliot,  Debates,  V,  446,  462.     Now  that  Mr.  Max  Farrand's   The 
Records  of  the  Federal  Convention  of  1787  (New  Haven:  1911.    3  vols.) 
is  available,  any  one  can  refer  to  the  discussions  over  commerce  easily 
by  means  of  the  copious  index  in  volume  III. 

4  J.  Sparks,  Life  of  Gouverneur  Morris,  III,  481  ff. 

5  P.  L.  Ford 's  edition,  especially  No.  42,  pp.  275  ff .,  and  No.  60,  pp. 
400  ff. 


COMMERCE  AND  LABOR  349 

concerning  all  bills  before  Congress  as  far  as  the  same 
may  affect  the  trade  of  the  States."6 

In  the  concluding  paragraphs  of  Hamilton's  cele- 
brated "Report  on  Manufactures "  there  occurred  a 
reference  to  a  Board,  the  functions  of  which  should 
involve  looking  after  the  proper  distribution  of  any 
surplus  arising  from  duties.  A  portion  of  the  public 
income  was  "to  constitute  a  fund  for  the  operation  of 
a  board  to  be  established  for  promoting  arts,  agri- 
culture, manufactures,  and  commerce.  Of  this  institu- 
tion, ' '  said  Hamilton, l '  different  intimations  have  been 
given  in  the  course  of  this  report."  Briefly  sum- 
marized, the  plan  was  this:  the  Board,  consisting  of 
three  or  more  government  officials,  was  to  be  authorized 
to  spend  money  for  the  sake  of  inducing  artists,  manu- 
facturers, and  skilful  artisans  to  come  to  this  country 
from  abroad,  or  to  draw  forth  by  means  of  prizes 
all  sorts  of  useful  mechanical  inventions  and  prac- 
tical discoveries.  Voluntary  contributions  might  be 
received,  it  was  suggested,  from  any  one  interested  in 
aiding  these  objects.  The  Board  was,  finally,  to  make 
an  annual  report  to  Congress  of  all  receipts  and  expen- 
ditures.7 

Neither  Webster's  nor  Hamilton's  plan  was  carefully 
worked  out.  Both  plans  were  merely  suggestive  of 
possible  methods  of  solving  administrative  problems 
arising  from  the  requirements  of  trade,  commerce,  or 
industries  of  various  kinds.  They  were  symptomatic 

6  Essays  (1791),  pp.  215-217.    See  also  pp.  199,  202,  218-219,  232,  248, 
251,  254. 

7  American  State  Papers,  Finance,  I,  144. 


350  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

of  a  period  when  men  were  groping  toward  effective 
administration. 

To  Congress  the  Constitution  had  entrusted  power 
to  regulate  trade  and  commerce.  The  Treasury  De- 
partment chiefly,  but  also  the  State  Department 
through  its  consular  and  foreign  commerce  bureaus, 
were  concerned  in  carrying  out  such  regulations  in 
these  matters  as  Congress  might  authorize.  In  the 
course  of  time  the  Department  of  the  Interior  (1849) 
and  that  of  Agriculture  (1862)  were  to  come  to  the 
rescue,  in  certain  particulars,  of  both  State  and  Treas- 
ury Departments.  Moreover  Congress,  through  grad- 
ual development  of  a  system  of  standing  committees, 
was  thus  to  find  a  means  whereby  it  might  place  itself 
in  a  position  to  understand  and  appreciate  the  most 
vital  needs  of  the  nation.  The  historic  factors  that  lay 
behind  the  appearance  of  all  the  Secretaryships  up  to 
1889  have  already  been  examined  and  set  forth.  As  to 
the  standing  committees  very  little  need  be  said. 
Beginning  with  provisions  for  two  such  committees  in 
1795 — the  Committee  of  Commerce,  Manufactures,  and 
Agriculture,  and  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means- 
Congress  gradually  added  to  them  or  sub-divided  them 
so  that,  among  a  good  many  additional  committees, 
note  may  be  taken  of  the  Committees  on  Manufactures 
(1819),  on  Agriculture  (1820),  on  Railways  and  Canals 
(1831),  on  Appropriations  (1865),  on  Banking  and  Cur- 
rency (1865),  on  Mines  and  Mining  (1865),  on  Educa- 
tion and  Labor  (1867),  on  Labor  (1883),  and  on  Inter- 
state and  Foreign  Commerce  (1891).8  By  means  of 

«L.  G.  McConachie,  Congressional  Committees  (1898),  pp.  349  ff. 


COMMERCE  AND  LABOR  351 

such  committees  Congress  put  off  the  necessity  of  pro- 
viding separate  departments  of  administration  for 
these  various  objects,  and  kept  at  the  same  time  within 
its  reach  and  control  many  of  the  subjects  which  might 
seem  better  provided  for  under  the  specific  direction  of 
separate  departments  with  principal  officers  in  charge. 

II 

Not  far  from  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century 
efforts  on  the  part  of  organizations  closely  concerned 
with  various  industries  began  to  be  made  for  the  pur- 
pose of  having  established  at  the  seat  of  government 
either  bureaus  or  independent  departments  which 
should  collect,  preserve,  and  distribute  accurate  infor- 
mation about  specific  industries,  and  at  the  same  time 
aid  Congress  in  formulating  the  best  sorts  of  legisla- 
tion. It  was  felt  keenly,  after  the  establishment  of 
the  Department  of  Agriculture  in  1862,  that  the 
farmers  had  gained  a  peculiar  advantage  over  other 
classes  of  workers.  Inasmuch  as  the  farmers  were 
represented  by  a  Department  and  Commissioner  of 
Agriculture,  it  was  not  clear  why  the  merchants,  the 
manufacturers,  the  miners,  and  organized  labor 
generally  should  not  be  granted  similar  representation 
in  the  national  administration.  From  about  the  close 
of  the  Civil  War  attempts  to  bring  about  some  such 
consummations  form  a  pretty  clearly  defined  move- 
ment. From  1864  to  1902  the  list  of  appeals  to  Con- 
gress in  the  shape  of  resolutions  and  bills  on  behalf  of 
Departments  of  Commerce,  Manufactures,  Mines  and 
Mining,  Industries,  Navigation,  and  Labor  is  prodi- 


352  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

giously  large.  There  were  those  who  thought  that 
bureaus  might  serve  every  purpose.  But  far  the 
greater  number  of  bills  were  formulated  for  the  sake  of 
obtaining  departments  or,  as  occasionally  they  were 
specifically  termed,  Executive  Departments.9  All  these 
appeals  were  characteristic  of  an  epoch  of  increas- 
ing prosperity,  rapidly  accumulating  wealth,  and  the 
growth  of  industrial  organization. 

A  glance  at  the  trend  of  effort — at  least  so  far  as 
that  trend  was  revealed  by  congressional  proceedings 
— indicates  unmistakably  that  plans  for  a  Department 
of  Commerce  or  a  Department  of  Commerce  and 
Manufactures  were  most  frequently  presented  to  Con- 
gress, and  occasionally  gained  some  consideration. 
Behind  the  effort  for  such  a  Department  were  very 
persistent  expressions  of  opinion  favoring  it  which 
came  from  commercial  conventions,  the  National  Board 
of  Trade,  and  other  organizations  of  business  men.10 
The  demand  was  echoed  in  political  platforms.  It  was 
made  at  various  hearings  by  witnesses  before  the 
Industrial  Commission  ( 1898-1901  ).u  It  was  admir- 
ably and  forcibly  formulated  at  length  in  President 
Roosevelt's  first  annual  message  of  December,  1901.12 

9  A  conveniently  arranged  and  sufficiently  full  bibliography  of  legisla- 
tive proceedings  in  Congress  anticipating  the  Department  of  Commerce 
and  Labor  will  be  found  in  the  volume  already  cited,  Organization  and 
Law  of  the  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  pp.  13-21. 

w  Conventions  at  Detroit  (1865)  and  at  Boston  (1868).  The  National 
Board  of  Trade  memorialized  Congress  in  1874.  Ibid.,  pp.  19,  21. 

u Report  (Washington:  1900  ff.),  IV,  177.  VII,  15.  IX,  Ixxiv. 
XIX,  575  ff. 

12  Messages  and  Papers,  Supplement  (1899-1902).  Ed.  by  G.  E. 
Devitt,  p.  323. 


COMMERCE  AND  LABOR  353 

The  establishment  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission in  1887  probably  had  a  tendency  to  delay  the 
outcome  of  the  effort,  for  that  attempt  to  eradicate 
the  transportation  evil  of  rebates  occupied  time  and 
sapped  the  energy  of  commerce  committees  of  Con- 
gress. 

Labor  was  almost  as  persistent  an  applicant  for 
administrative  recognition  within  the  period  as  Com- 
merce or  Manufactures — first  striving  to  obtain  a 
Bureau,  and  later  (beginning  early  in  the  ninth 
decade)  harassing  Congress  for  a  Department  headed 
by  a  cabinet  Secretary.  By  1888  Labor  appeared  to 
be  close  to  the  attainment  of  its  goal,  for,  in  the  first 
place,  Congress  granted  it  the  Bureau  of  Labor  in 
June,  1884,  in  the  Department  of  the  Interior.13  Soon 
after  the  termination  of  the  great  Southwestern  strike 
on  the  railroads  in  1886,  the  Knights  of  Labor,  then 
at  the  very  acme  of  their  career  as  an  influential  labor 
factor,  had  hopes  that  President  Cleveland  would  suc- 
ceed in  obtaining  a  Commission  of  Labor  that  might 
in  future  reduce  the  probability  of  such  unfortunate 
occurrences  as  strikes.  Cleveland  was  induced  to 
draft  a  recommendation  to  Congress  on  the  subject 
under  date  of  April  22,  1886.14  But  the  project,  not- 
withstanding executive  assistance,  failed  to  mature. 

For  many  years,  as  we  have  seen,  the  farmers  of  the 
country  had  been  eager  to  have  the  Department  of 
Agriculture  raised  to  the  dignity  and  importance  of 

«  June  27.    23  Statutes  at  Large,  pp.  60  ff. 

!*  Messages  and  Papers,  VIII,  394-397.  Cf.  Congressional  Record, 
XXXV,  1000  ff.  (January  27,  1902.) 


354  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

an  Executive  Department.  When  that  subject  was  at 
length  forced  upon  Congress,  attempts  were  made  to 
have  action  taken  on  behalf  of  other  industrial  inter- 
ests, notably  those  of  Organized  Labor.  Why,  it  was 
asked,  should  there  not  be  a  Secretary  of  Labor  as 
well  as  of  Agriculture  1  Congress  was,  however,  in  no 
mood  to  admit  the  claims  of  Labor  to  such  rank.  As  a 
sort  of  sop  to  Cerberus,  the  Bureau  of  Labor  was  taken 
from  the  Department  of  the  Interior  and  given  an 
independent  footing  as  the  Department  of  Labor  by  an 
act  of  June  13,  1888.15  The  matter  was  thus  disposed 
of  greatly  to  the  chagrin  of  many  laboring  men. 
Hon.  Carroll  D.  Wright  continued  his  sway  as  Com- 
missioner of  Labor.  He  was  not  the  kind  of  man  to 
satisfy  the  average  labor  organization,  although  as  a 
trained  statistician  he  proved  eminently  useful  to  the 
government  during  a  long  term  of  service.  With  all 
his  ability  and  knowledge  of  industrial  conditions,  the 
laboring  men  protested  that  W&ght  could  never  speak 
with  authority  for  the  wage  earner.16 

After  1889,  with  a  shrewd  sense  of  the  force  of  the 
movement  backed  by  merchants,  manufacturers,  and 
others,  Labor  tagged  close  behind  or  travelled  occa- 
sionally in  company  with  Commerce,  hoping  thus  to 
gain  its  object.  As  illustrations  of  this  truth,  it  is 
worth  noting  that  in  1896,  1897,  and  again  in  1901  bills 
providing  for  a  Department  of  Commerce,  Labor,  and 
Manufactures  were  introduced  into  Congress.17 

15  25  Statutes  at  Large,  pp.  183  ff. 
is  Congressional  Eecord,  XXXV,  1000. 

17  Organisation  and  Law  of  the  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor, 
pp.  19,  21. 


COMMERCE  AND  LABOR  355 

III 

As  one  considers  the  years  1898-1903  with  especial 
reference  to  the  final  outcome,  and  keeps  in  mind 
impressions  which  reveal  themselves  in  the  debates  in 
Congress,  three  factors  appear  to  have  had  marked 
influence — a  compelling  force — on  the  movement 
toward  the  creation  of  a  new  department.  There  was, 
first  of  all,  the  war  with  Spain  in  1898,  resulting  in 
various  acquisitions  of  territory  to  the  United  States. 
New  administrative  problems  arose  almost  imme- 
diately, and  called  for  more  effective  federal  organiza- 
tion. This  factor  hardly  calls  for  any  detailed  exami- 
nation. In  the  second  place,  there  was  very  great 
complexity  in  the  general  industrial  situation,  a  situa- 
tion clearly  and  forcibly  set  forth  in  the  Roosevelt 
message  of  1901.  Consolidation  of  great  business 
interests  had  been  advancing  rapidly.  The  Northern 
Securities  merger  attracted  widespread  attention  as 
an  effort  to  combine  certain  railroads  in  a  way  directly 
opposed  to  public  welfare.  But  it  was  only  one  of  the 
more  conspicuous  illustrations  of  the  whole  movement 
toward  industrial  combination.  Third,  the  strike  of  the 
anthracite  coal  miners  in  1902,  coming  at  a  time  when 
there  was  a  maturing  conviction  that  something  should 
be  done  to  adjust  the  claims  of  the  wage  earning 
classes,  was  a  factor  in  the  industrial  situation  that 
assumed  considerable  political  importance.  Some 
attention  to  the  Roosevelt  message  and  to  the  debates 
in  Congress  over  the  passage  of  the  law  will  serve  to 
bring  these  two  latter  factors  into  perspective,  and 
reveal  their  bearing. 


356  TEE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Devoting  a  long  section  of  his  first  annual  message 
to  a  careful  consideration  of  social  and  highly  com- 
plicated industrial  conditions  which  confronted  the 
nation  at  the  very  outset  of  the  twentieth  century, 
President  Roosevelt  made  a  vigorous  plea  for  improv- 
ing the  machinery  of  government  in  such  a  way  as 
might  provide  in  future  for  more  careful  and  effective 
legislation  on  all  matters  which  directly  concerned  the 
public  welfare.  In  general  he  advocated,  first,  greater 
publicity — a  knowledge  of  industrial  and  social  facts 
obtained,  if  necessary,  by  due  process  of  law.  In  the 
second  place,  he  advocated,  on  the  basis  of  such  knowl- 
edge, increased  governmental  supervision  and  regula- 
tion of  all  corporate  interests  of  an  interstate  nature 
which  were  certain  to  affect,  for  better  or  worse,  the 
general  welfare.  As  one  means  to  the  contemplated 
ends,  Mr.  Roosevelt  made  this  tangible  proposal: 
61  There  should  be  created, "  he  said,  "a  Cabinet  officer, 
to  be  known  as  Secretary  of  Commerce  and  Industries, 
as  provided  in  the  bill  introduced  at  the  last  session  of 
the  Congress.  It  should  be  his  province  to  deal  with 
commerce  in  its  broadest  sense ;  including  among  many 
other  things  whatever  concerns  labor  and  all  matters 
affecting  the  great  business  corporations  and  our 
merchant  marine.  The  course  proposed,"  he  con- 
tinued, "is  one  phase  of  what  should  be  a  compre- 
hensive and  far-reaching  scheme  of  constructive 
statesmanship  for  the  purpose  of  broadening  our 
markets,  securing  our  business  interests  on  a  safe 
basis,  and  making  firm  our  new  position  in  the  inter- 
national industrial  world;  while  scrupulously  safe- 


COMMERCE  AND  LABOR  357 

guarding  the  rights  of  wage  worker  and  capitalist,  of 
investor  and  private  citizen,  so  as  to  secure  equity  as 
between  man  and  man  in  this  Republic.  With  the 
sole  exception  of  the  farming  interest/'  he  added,  "no 
one  matter  is  of  such  vital  moment  to  our  whole  people 
as  the  welfare  of  the  wage  workers.  If  the  farmer 
and  the  wage  worker  are  well  off,  it  is  absolutely  cer- 
tain that  all  others  will  be  well  off  too. ' ' 

This  passage,  attracting  attention,  met  generally 
with  favorable  comment.  The  special  proposal,  more- 
over, was  in  line  with  a  long  train  of  effort  which,  as 
we  have  seen,  was  making  for  some  such  office.  The 
interests  of  both  Commerce  and  Labor  were  empha- 
sized together  as  standing  on  the  most  intimate  footing. 
Indeed,  in  the  whole  history  of  the  growth  of  Execu- 
tive Departments,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  there  had 
ever  been  made  a  more  timely  or  effective  plea  than 
was  Mr.  Roosevelt's  in  the  winter  of  1901.  It  touched 
Congress  to  the  quick  at  the  very  climax  of  public 
effort  for  a  new  Department. 

Several  bills  under  various  titles,  but  all  designed 
to  provide  for  a  new  Department,  were  introduced 
into  either  the  House  or  the  Senate  within  the  first 
few  days  after  the  opening  of  the  Fifty-seventh  Con- 
gress in  December,  1901.18  For  more  than  ten  years — 
ever  since,  in  fact,  Senator  Frye  of  Maine  had  pro- 
jected a  plan  for  a  Department  of  Commerce  and  intro- 
duced it  into  the  Senate  on  January  15,  1891 — one  bill 
after  another  had  appeared  and  been  shelved.  But 
Frye  was  remarkably  persistent ;  he  got  a  bill  into  the 

is  Congressional  Record,  XXXV,  51,  53,  95,  125,  128. 


358  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Fifty-fifth  Congress  on  March  18,  1897,  and  won  a 
hearing  for  his  project  in  the  Fifty-sixth  Congress. 
The  bill  of  Senator  Nelson  of  Minnesota  which  called 
simply  for  a  Department  of  Commerce  and  was  intro- 
duced on  December  4,  1901 — the  day  after  the  Roose- 
velt message  had  been  delivered — was  in  all  essentials 
equivalent  to  Senator  Frye  's  most  recent  plan.  It  was 
destined,  furthermore,  after  sundry  alterations,  to  win 
the  approval  of  President  Roosevelt  and  Congress 
in  February,  1903,  and  accordingly  became  law.  But 
its  passage  through  both  the  Senate  and  the  House 
was  slow  and  hampered  by  difficulties. 

Late  in  January,  1902,  the  Senate  decided  to  recog- 
nize Labor  in  the  title,  thus  characterizing  the  pro- 
jected department  as  the  Department  of  Commerce 
and  Labor.19  The  decision  was  not  made  without  an 
effort  that  threw  an  interesting  light  on  the  whole 
course  of  the  project. 

According  to  the  plan,  the  Department  of  Labor, 
which  had  stood  on  an  independent  footing  since  1888 
under  supervision  of  a  Commissioner,  was  to  be  merged 
in  the  new  Department  as  the  Bureau  of  Labor,  still 
retaining  a  Commissioner  who  was,  however,  to  be 
subject  to  the  Secretary  of  Commerce  and  Labor. 
Evidence  was  produced  in  the  Senate  to  indicate  that 
the  old  and  enfeebled  organization  known  as  the 
Knights  of  Labor  approved  the  new  arrangement  and 
merger.  A  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  con- 
taining a  Labor  Bureau,  seemed  to  them  preferable  to 
an  independent  Department  of  Labor  which  (as  they 

w  Congressional  Eecord,  XXXV,  912,  1051. 


COMMERCE  AND  LABOR  359 

phrased  it)  had  from  the  beginning  been  conducted 
"as  a  personal  asset  of  the  Commissioner. "  To  the 
Knights  of  Labor  the  new  measure  appeared  to  be  a 
step  toward  an  executive  Department  of  Labor  having 
a  Secretary  of  cabinet  rank  at  its  head.20  The  Ameri- 
can Federation  of  Labor,  on  the  other  hand,  declined 
to  favor  any  such  plan.  In  the  eyes  of  the  Federation 
it  looked  like  a  step  backward,  for  it  seemed  to  reduce 
the  Bureau  of  Labor  to  virtually  its  original  status  of 
1884,  when  it  had  first  been  placed  under  the  Depart- 
ment of  the  Interior.  The  efforts  of  Organized  Labor 
to  secure  the  independent  Department  of  1888  were 
apparently  to  count  for  nothing.  "Questions  often 
arise  in  the  official  family  of  the  President, "  declared 
Mr.  Samuel  Gompers  in  a  letter  introduced  into  the 
Senate  discussion,  "in  which  justice,  fair  dealing, 
ethics,  and  the  law  and  its  administration  must  fre- 
quently be  under  consideration,  and,"  he  added, 
"unless  there  is  some  representative  of  the  workers 
competent  to  speak  in  their  name,  to  advocate  their 
cause,  to  convey  to  the  executive  head  and  his  advisers 
the  laborers'  side  of  labor's  contention,  he  and  they 
must  be  deprived  of  valuable  and  far-reaching 
information. '  '21 

These  two  opposing  points  of  view  opened  the  way 
to  much  discussion,  some  of  it  futile  and  clearly 
inspired  by  political  bias  or  partisan  considerations. 
The  dominant  majority  refused  to  be  distracted  from 
its  position  that  the  projected  department  was  a  real 

20/fetd.,  XXXV,  1000-1001. 
21  Hid.,  XXXV,  863. 


360  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

necessity,  and  declined  to  favor  Labor,  whether  organ- 
ized or  unorganized,  as  an  element  that  could  fairly 
claim  to  be  differentiated  as  a  class  from  the  other 
elements  involved.  As  Senator  Hanna  declared  with 
force,  the  commercial  and  industrial  interests  of  the 
country  had  for  a  long  time  been  demanding  a  depart- 
ment. These  interests  were  really  one  and  included 
labor  of  all  kinds.  Moreover,  he  urged,  the  interests 
of  capital  and  labor  were  so  intimately  related  as 
really  to  be  identical  and  mutual.22 

Almost  a  full  year  elapsed  before  the  bill  was 
brought  before  the  House  of  Representatives — a  year 
peculiarly  memorable  because  of  the  great  disturbance 
to  industry  which  was  the  result  of  the  strike  of  the 
anthracite  coal  miners.  Discussion  was  opened  in  the 
House  on  January  15, 1903,  by  Representative  James  R. 
Mann  of  Illinois  who,  with  a  remarkably  clear  under- 
standing of  the  whole  course  of  departmental  history, 
helped  to  bring  the  House  to  an  intelligent  considera- 
tion of  the  measure.  Two  days'  later,  on  January  17, 
the  bill  passed  its  last  ordeal,  and  was  quickly  adjusted 
by  conference  committees  in  a  way  to  meet  the  appro- 
val of  both  Congress  and  the  President.23 

Representative  Mann,  calling  attention  to  the  efforts 
that  had  been  made  for  years  past  to  get  commercial, 
manufacturing,  mining,  labor,  and  even  educational 
interests  represented  in  the  Cabinet,  reminded  his 
colleagues  that  only  two  new  Executive  Departments 

22  Congressional  Eecord,  XXXV,  914. 

23  Ibid.,  XXXVI,   549,  858  ff.,   929-930,   945-946,   1398,   1446,   1465- 
1467,  2008,  2036,  2188. 


COMMERCE  AND  LABOR  361 

—Interior  and  Agriculture — had  been  created  within  a 
century.  ' i  The  original ....  Executive  Departments, ' ' 
he  asserted,  "were  each  created  because  of  a  necessity 
and  propriety  which  was  apparent.  The  Interior 
Department  was  created  because  at  the  time  it  seemed 
very  desirable  to  relieve  some  of  the  other  depart- 
ments of  what  were  to  them  excrescences,  and  also  to 
create  an  official  adviser  to  the  President  who  would 
give  particular  attention  to  the  growth  and  develop- 
ment of  our  country  internally. "  Here  the  speaker 
dwelt  on  the  distinction  between  the  establishment  of 
the  Department  of  Agriculture  in  1862  and  that  of  its 
predecessors.  Its  establishment  was  a  clear  departure 
from  the  previous  policy  of  the  government.  The 
Department  of  Agriculture  was  not,  he  showed,  essen- 
tial to  the  administration  of  the  government,  although 
it  had  proved  in  the  course  of  years  to  be  immensely 
useful.  Primarily  it  was  a  center  for  research  and 
scientific  investigation.  That  its  success  had  much  to 
do  with  the  persistent  demands  of  such  other  interests 
as  Commerce  and  Manufactures  for  departmental 
recognition,  he  had  no  doubt.  Many  industrial  inter- 
ests had  increased  since  that  day  to  such  a  degree  of 
importance  that  they,  as  well  as  Agriculture,  could 
reasonably  ask  for  recognition  in  the  federal  govern- 
ment. The  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor  would 
afford  a  means  of  carrying  on  scientific  research,  the 
results  of  which  could  be  used  by  all  classes  of  the 
people,  indeed  by  all  the  people  "upon  even  terms. " 
Investigations,  he  said,  which  "are  now  carried  on  in 
secret  by  the  employees  of  some  of  the  great  corpora- 


362  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

tions  and  used  exclusively  for  the  benefit  of  those  cor- 
porations "  should  be  placed  under  the  direction  and 
supervision  of  the  new  Department.  One  of  its  chief 
functions  would  be  to  furnish  reliable  statistics  on  all 
sorts  of  home  industries ;  and  thus  it  would  unify  much 
statistical  work.24 

In  urging  that  the  Bureau  of  Labor  should  be  placed 
in  the  new  Department,  Mann  reminded  the  opponents 
of  the  plan  that  a  "  statement  or  recommendation  in 
the  annual  report  of  one  of  the  Cabinet  officers  is  likely 
to  attract  some  attention;  but  the  opinion  or  recom- 
mendation of  the  head  of  a  branch  of  the  service  not 
connected  with  one  of  the  general  departments  is  apt 
to  be  overlooked — not  from  design,  not  from  thought- 
lessness ....  but  from  lack  of  time  and  endurance."25 

Turning  to  the  example  of  foreign  countries,  Mr. 
Mann  directed  attention  to  the  British  Board  of  Trade 
as  in  some  respects  analogous  to  the  projected  depart- 
ment. The  British  Board  he  regarded  as  having  been 
influential  in  bringing  about  British  supremacy  in  the 
world's  commerce.  He  reminded  his  hearers  that  such 
countries  as  Germany,  France,  Belgium,  Russia,  Spain, 
and  several  others  had  found  it  feasible  to  arrange  for 
special  ministries  which  gave  careful  attention  to  just 
such  work — administrative  and  statistical — as  the  bill 
contemplated.26 

In  view  of  the  necessity  of  administrative  enlarge- 
ment and  of  popular  approval  for  such  enlargement, 

24  Congressional  Record,  XXXVI,  858-860  (passim}. 
^Ilid.,  XXXVI,  862. 
26  IUd.,  XXXVI,  860. 


COMMERCE  AND  LABOR  363 

the  speaker  was  convinced  that  the  time  had  come  for 
the  creation  of  another  department.  More  than  one 
department,  however,  could  not  wisely  be  organized. 
More  than  one  new  cabinet  official  should  not  be  thrust 
on  the  President.  "The  President's  Cabinet  is  extra- 
constitutional.  It  ....  exists  voluntarily  and  by  force 
of  custom.  It  has  become  the  custom,  however  .... 
when  a  department  is  created  and  the  head  thereof  is 
denominated  '  Secretary '  ....  to  consider  him  as  a 
cabinet  officer.  There  is,  of  course,  nothing  to  prevent 
the  President  from  requesting  the  head  of  any  other 
department  to  attend  the  meetings  of  ....  the  Cabinet. 
But  the  force  of  custom  as  it  now  exists  is  very  strong. 
No  departure  from  it  is  likely  to  soon  occur.  The 
meetings  of  the  Cabinet  necessarily  exercise  a  tre- 
mendous influence  upon  the  policies  of  the  Executive. 
A  department  which  is  represented  in  the  Cabinet  is 
thereby  given  a  great  advantage  ....  It  never  has  been 
the  policy  of  the  President  to  unduly  extend  the  size 
of  his  Cabinet.  To  add  greatly  to  its  numbers  would 
destroy  its  efficiency.  It  never  has  been  the  policy, 
therefore,  of  Congress  to  easily  create  a  new  head  of 
an  executive  department  who,  under  the  custom,  would 
be  entitled  to  the  courtesy  of  a  seat  in  the  Cabinet."27 
Mr.  Mann's  careful  and  illuminating  speech  fur- 
nished at  the  very  outset  a  foundation  of  facts  that 
tended  in  all  probability  to  abbreviate  the  succeeding 
debate.  But  a  factious  minority  felt  bound  to  express 
itself  against  the  measure.  It  was  claimed,  in  the  first 
place,  that  Labor,  although  not  actually  left  out  of  the 

27/fcid.,  XXXVI,  858-859. 


364  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

proposed  department,  was  really  subordinated  and, 
by  being  confined  to  a  mere  Bureau,  would  be  stripped 
of  its  existing  dignity  of  an  independent  department.28 
It  was  easy  for  Eepresentative  Bichardson  of  Ala- 
bama to  cite  the  Democratic  platform  of  1900,  which 
had  declared  for  a  Department  of  Labor,  and  to  con- 
trast it  with  the  Eepublican  platform  of  the  same 
year  which  had  declared  for  a  Department  of  Com- 
merce. He  argued  that  the  measure  before  the  House 
had  been  drawn  upon  Eepublican  lines  and  favored 
the  commercial  as  differentiated  from  the  labor  class. 
"If,"  said  the  same  speaker,  alluding  to  very  recent 
events,  "there  had  been  a  secretary  of  labor  in  the 
Cabinet  of  the  President  having  authority  to  speak  for 
labor  and  to  confer  with  the  President,  the  President 
could  have  avoided  the  necessity  of  inviting  Mr. 
Mitchell  and  other  labor  leaders  to  join  the  coal 
operators  with  him  in  conference  in  an  effort  to  adjust 
the  differences  of  the  great  anthracite  coal  strike. 
More  than  that,"  he  continued,  "had  there  been  such 
a  secretary  then  by  the  President,  the  creation  of  the 
Strike  Commission,  admitted  to  be  unauthorized  by 
law,  would  have  been  avoided."29  "Your  Secretary  of 
Commerce,"  asserted  Eepresentative  C.  F.  Cochran  of 
Missouri,  "will  be  drawn  from  classes  and  your 
Department  of  Commerce  will  be  dominated  by  influ- 
ences interested  solely  in  increasing  trade  and  the 
profits  of  traders."30  Another  speaker  objected  that 

28  Congressional  Becord,  XXXVI,  864. 

wilid.,  XXXVI,  867. 

so  Ibid.,  XXXVI,  Appendix,  p.  145. 


COMMERCE  AND  LABOR  365 

there  was  no  reference  of  any  consequence  to  Labor. 
The  new  Department,  he  contended,  was  misnamed: 
'  '  So  far  as  labor  is  concerned  in  this  country,  it  is  not 
recognized. ' '  The  plan  was  simply  one  more  effort  to 
centralize  all  the  interests  of  the  people.31 

Limited  by  such  views,  the  minority  struggled 
obstinately  to  force  Congress  to  make  a  clear  differ- 
ence in  the  bill  between  the  interests  of  Capital  and 
Labor.  They  refused  to  be  satisfied  by  anything  short 
of  two  departments — a  Department  of  Labor  and  a 
Department  of  Commerce,  each  with  its  Secretary  of 
cabinet  rank.  What  in  substance  they  wanted  would 
have  virtually  forced  Congress  to  declare  officially 
that  "the  best  the  statesmanship  of  the  future  can 
hope  to  do  is  to  give  these  two  classes  a  fair  field  and 
no  favors  and  let  them  fight  it  out."32 

IV 

The  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor  could  have 
been  established  for  no  partisan  ends.  It  was  intended 
primarily  as  a  means  of  affording  reliable  information 
to  the  people  of  the  entire  country  on  such  subjects  as 
trade,  commerce,  labor,  and  various  sorts  of  indus- 
tries. Incidentally  it  relieved  the  overburdened 
Treasury  Department  of  numerous  charges.  Among 
various  transfers,  it  took  over  the  Bureau  of  the 
Census  from  the  Interior  Department ;  and  it  relieved 
'the  Department  of  State  of  the  Bureau  of  Foreign 
Commerce,  the  latter  being  made  part  of  the  Bureau 

31  Hid.,  XXXVI,  875. 

32  Hid. 


366  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

of  Statistics.  The  Bureau  of  Corporations  and  the 
Bureau  of  Manufactures  were  distinctly  new  creations 
in  the  Department.  Much  statistical  and  scientific 
work  of  the  government  was  actually  placed  in  the 
Department,  and  could  be  so  placed  at  the  discretion  of 
the  President  in  accordance  with  growing  needs.33 

In  the  whole  course  of  the  debates,  very  little  was 
said  as  to  the  constitutionality  of  the  proposed  depart- 
ment, although  there  were  casual  reflections  on  the 
subject  here  and  there.  The  Department  of  Commerce 
and  Labor  was  not,  strictly  speaking,  essential  to  the 
administration  of  the  federal  government.  Behind  the 
movement  for  it  there  were  many  industrial  and  social 
factors  which  were  likely  to  be  greatly  benefited  by 
its  creation.  It  came  chiefly  as  a  result  of  the  intelli- 
gent recognition  that  government  knowledge  and 
supervision  of  those  factors  was  necessary  to  the 
maintenance  of  the  general  welfare.  The  measure  was 
clearly  akin  to  the  act  which  established  the  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture  in  1862.  It  too  marked  the  depart- 
ure in  administrative  policy  which  that  act  had  first 
revealed. 

For  a  great  many  years  there  had  been  an  intelligent 
prejudice  against  enlarging  the  Cabinet.  This  preju- 
dice had  asserted  itself  even  as  far  back  as  1849  when 
the  plan  of  a  Department  of  the  Interior  was  under 
discussion.34  It  appeared  in  1862,  and  was  still  more 

33  32  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  825.    Professor  John  A.  Fairlie  devotes  a 
chapter  (XVI)  to  the  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor  in  his  volume 
entitled  The  National  Administration  of  the  United  States  of  America 
(1905),  pp.  230-247. 

34  Supra,  chapter  X,  p.  284. 


COMMERCE  AND  LABOR  367 

pronounced  in  1888-1889.35  In  1903  Mann's  intelligent 
outline  of  the  growth  of  the  Cabinet,  from  the  very 
beginning  under  Washington,  probably  tended  to 
reduce  the  force  of  any  such  argument  against  the 
establishment  of  the  new  Department.  At  any  rate 
Mr.  Mann  indicated  very  directly  that  he  had  pondered 
carefully  the  problem  and  would  himself  disapprove 
of  much  enlargement  of  the  Cabinet.  There  was  very 
little  opposition  to  the  bill  that  could  have  rested  on 
the  basis  of  this  prejudice.  Nevertheless  the  old 
prejudice  is  very  likely  to  reappear  in  connection  with 
any  future  attempt  to  establish  an  additional  execu- 
tive department,  for  there  is  good  reason  to  believe 
that  the  Cabinet  cannot  now  be  enlarged  without 
seriously  interfering  with  its  usefulness  as  a  con- 
sultative body. 

35  Supra,  chapter  XI,  pp.  333,  338. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

CONCLUSIONS 

IN  the  world  of  political  progression  no  government, 
it  is  safe  to  say,  can  ever  rest  on  quite  its  original 
plan.  Experience,  and  circumstances  beyond  the 
knowledge  and  control  of  one  generation  or  set  of 
men  make  succeeding  generations  constantly  sensible 
of  new  wants,  and  force  them  to  adopt  political  devices 
which  may  help  to  satisfy  such  wants.  "We  must 
follow  the  nature  of  our  affairs,"  said  Edmund  Burke, 
"and  conform  ourselves  to  our  situation.  If  we  do, 
our  objects  are  plain  and  compassable. ' n  The  fabric 
and  the  administrative  machinery  of  government  rest 
on  the  written  laws.  But  the  laws,  as  Burke  very  well 
understood,  reach  but  a  very  little  way.  Administra- 
tion, to  be  effective,  must  often  depend  on  practices 
of  which  the  written  laws  take  little  or  no  account. 
Behind  the  laws  there  are  assumptions  which  give 
room  for  the  exercise  of  individual  judgment  and  dis- 
cretion essential  to  their  proper  execution.  The  field 
of  political  practices  and  devices  has  always  been  large 
and  ill  defined.  The  student  of  history  who  would 
enter  it  can  never  do  so  by  an  easy  road,  for  the 
various  practices  and  devices  within  its  bounds  can 
seldom  be  seen  or  determined  at  a  glance. 

i  Works,  II,  357.     Speech  in  the  House  of  Commons  on  February  11, 
1780. 


CONCLUSIONS  369 


The  President's  Cabinet  is,  and  from  the  outset  of 
its  existence  has  been,  a  political  device  not  directly 
accounted  for  in  the  statute  laws  or  in  the  Constitu- 
tion. ;It  came  into  being  as  one  result  of  the  discre- 
tionary power  with  which  the  makers  of  the  Consti- 
tution intended  to  endow  the  chief  magistrate. .  It  was 
created  by  President  Washington  in  the  opening  years 
of  our  government  under  the  Constitution  in  response 
to  a  demand  of  the  President  for  a  board  of  qualified 
assistants  and  confidential  advisers,  a  demand  so  fun- 
damental and  natural  as  to  be  felt,  but  not  anywhere 
at  that  time  definitely  formulated  or  at  all  clearly 
expressed. 

This  board  of  assistants  summoned  by  the  first 
President  was  akin  in  structure,  if  not  also  in  func- 
tions, to  some  of  the  colonial  Councils  of  State — 
occasionally  called  Privy  Councils — and  to  the  English 
Cabinet  Council,  the  particular  institution  from  which 
the  President's  Cabinet,  by  popular  analogy,  was 
named.2  As  early  as  1783  Pelatiah  Webster  had  con- 
ceived a  similar  board  and  termed  it  the  Council  of 
State  in  connection  with  his  design  for  altering  the 
government  of  the  Confederation.  It  would,  indeed, 
perhaps  be  fair  to  say  that  Webster's  Council  of  State 
foreshadowed  the  later  Cabinet.3  At  any  rate,  a  board 
of  administrative  officials  or  heads  of  departments  as 
advisers  to  the  President  was  foreseen  as  a  possi- 
bility several  years  later,  at  the  epoch  of  the  Conven- 

2  Supra,  pp.  78  ff.,  89-96,  135-139,  150,  155-158. 

3  Supra,  pp.  62-63. 


370  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

tion  of  1787,  by  a  few  of  the  more  discerning  states-, 
men  then  hard  at  work  on  the  problem  of  establishing 
an  efficient  chief  magistrate  who  should  have  control 
over  a  national  system  of  administration.  This  pos- 
sible board  was  first  termed  the  "Cabinet  Council"  in 
1787  by  Charles  Pinckney  of  South  Carolina  in  a  pas- 
sage to  be  found  in  his  Observations  on  the  Plan  of 
Government  submitted  to  the  Federal  Convention* 
But  such  a  board  was  not  made  practically  assured 
until  the  first  Congress,  during  the  spring  and  summer 
of  1789,  had  arranged  the  statutes  which  provided  for 
four  principal  offices — three  Secretaryships  and  the 
Attorney-Generalship;  and  until  the  Senate  had  in 
September  of  that  year  ratified  Washington's  appoint- 
ments to  those  offices.5 

As  time  elapsed,  and  the  volume  as  well  as  the  diver- 
sity of  presidential  and  administrative  tasks  increased, 
five  other  offices  were  so  arranged  by  the  laws  as  to 
make  it  not  only  practicable  but  likewise  desirable  for 
the  President  to  increase  the  original  board  from  four 
to  nine  confidential  assistants.  Thus  the  President's 
Cabinet  originated,  and  was  formed,  and  grew  into  the 
institution  which  we  know  to-day.  But  the  process  of 
growth  was  slow,  extending  over  a  period  of  more  than 
a  century. 

With  the  establishment  of  the  Secretaryship  of  the 
Navy  in  17986  and  the  Secretaryship  of  the  Interior  in 
1849,7  together  with  the  admission  of  the  Postmaster- 

*  Supra,  pp.  90-94. 

5  Supra,  pp.  97  ff.,  110-119. 

6  Supra,  chapter  VIII. 

7  Supra,  chapter  X. 


CONCLUSIONS  371 


General  into  the  President's  circle  of  regular  advisers 
in  1829,8  the  Cabinet  reached  a  stage  of  maturity,  if 
not  of  political  completion  in  its  growth,  by  about  the 
middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  that  is  to  say,  after 
an  existence  of  nearly  sixty  years.  The  occupants  of 
the  seven  great  offices,  which  by  that  time  composed 
the  Council,  were  officers  necessary  to  any  vigorous 
and  efficient  central  system  of  administration.  From 
the  standpoint  of  centralization  it  was  certainly  desir- 
able that  such  officers  should  be  intimate  with  the 
President  and  his  trusted  advisers  in  matters  of  public 
policy.  While  five  out  of  the  seven  offices  had  been 
more  or  less  definitely  arranged  by  the  statutes  of 
1789  or  a  little  later,  the  two  remaining  offices,  the 
Secretaryships  of  the  Navy  and  the  Interior,  were 
foreseen  at  that  early  day  as  likely  in  the  course  of 
years  to  become  essential  to  a  well-managed  and 
vigorous  government.  When  these  latter  two  Secre- 
taryships were  created — relieving  the  older  principal 
offices  of  various  tasks,  and  meeting  the  pressure  of 
new  administrative  needs — their  creation  completed 
the  original  ideal  of  an  American  secretariat,  the  ideal 
(let  us  say)  of  the  decade,  1780-1790. 

Within  the  third  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century 
sundry  legislative  enactments  aided  what  may  be 
called  the  process  of  cabinet  unification,  although  none 
of  the  enactments,  it  should^be  added,  took  any  direct 
account  of  the  Cabinet.  (An  act  of  March  3,  1853, 
placed  the  seven  officials  then  forming  the  Council  for 
the  first  time  on  an  equal  footing  in  the  matter  of  sala- 

8  Supra,  chapter  IX. 


372  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

ries.9  This  was  the  culmination  of  a  series  of  occa- 
sional efforts,  traceable  from  a  much  earlier  date,  to 
bring  the  salaries  of  the  principal  officers  into  uni- 
formity.10 Again,  between  1870  and  1874,  several 
alterations  and  various  re-adjustments  were  made  in 
the  laws  affecting  the  principal  offices  in  ways  to  show- 
that  the  statutes  were  being  shaped  into  some  degree 
of  conformity  with  political  practices  of  which  they 
took  no  express  account. 

The  statutes  of  1789,  it  may  be  recalled,  had  pro- 
vided for  only  two  "  executive "  departments — the 
Departments  of  State  and  War.11  The  Department  of 
the  Navy  was  an  "  executive "  department  from  the 
date  (1798)  of  its  establishment;  so  likewise  was  the 
Department  of  the  Interior  from  1849.  The  law  on 
the  basis  of  which  the  Treasury  Department  had  been 
originally  organized  contained  certain  peculiarities  of 
language  and  intent  which  gave  ground  for  the  con- 
tention that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  might  be 
regarded  as  not  only  within  the  range  of  congressional 
control  but  also  of  congressional  direction.  President 
Jackson,  however,  assumed  that  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  was,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  an  execu- 
tive official  and,  at  least  in  matters  involving  presi- 
dential policy,  strictly  subject  to  the  direction  of  the 
chief  magistrate.  Jackson,  moreover,  acted  on  the 
basis  of  this  interpretation  of  the  law,  and  accordingly 
established  a  precedent  which  could  not  be  overlooked 

9  See  Appendix  A,  p.  396. 

10  Supra,  pp.  105,  159,  161,  163,  169  ff.,  173  ff.,  178. 

11  Chapter  IV,  supra,  p.  100. 


CONCLUSIONS  373 


in  future  by  his  successors.  When  the  statutes. were 
revised  in  1873  and  approved  the  next  year,  the  law  at 
length  defined  the  Treasury  Department  as  an  *  *  execu- 
tive department."12  From  1789  to  1870  the  Attorney- 
General  occupied  an  "Office."  By  the  act  of  June  22, 
1870,  he  became  head  of  the  "executive  department" 
of  Justice.13  By  the  provisional  law  of  1789  the  Post- 
master-General, while  placed  under  the  general  direc- 
tion of  the  President,  was  regarded  as  an  official  in 
charge  of  the  "Post-Office."  In  the  slow  process  of 
elaborating  legal  phraseology  the  Post-Office  of  1789 
was  viewed  as  an  "Establishment"  (1810),  as  a 
Department"  (1825),  and  finally  as  an  "Executive 
Department"  (1874).  But  years  before  the  clear 
enactment  of  1874  the  Post-Office  Department  was  con- 
sidered, by  construction,  as  an  executive  department, 
and  the  Postmaster-General  as  "an  executive  officer 
of  the  United  States."14  It  was  the  revision  of  the 
statutes  in  1873  which  finally  disposed  of  the  incon- 
gruous title  of  the  Department  of  the  Interior.15 

Thus  the  revision  of  the  statutes  in  1873  was  largely 

an  attempt  to  re-shape  and  make  consistent  a  great 

I  amount  of  legislation  which  had  been  lagging  behind 

1  the  needs  of  the  times,  or  was  to  some  extent  outgrown. 

The  officials  of  the  Cabinet  were  henceforth  all  heads 

12  Supra,  pp.  100-105. 

13  Supra,  chapter  VII,  187  ff. 

i*  Supra,  chapter  IX,  231-232.  The  quotation  is  from  Benjamin  F. 
Butler's  opinion  of  June  19,  1837,  printed  in  United  States  vs.  Kendall 
(1837).  Butler  was  Attorney-General  under  Jackson  and  Van  Buren  from 
1833  to  1838. 

is  Supra,  chapter  X,  Note  2,  p.  289,  for  remarks  on  the  "Home 
Department. ' ' 


374  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

of  ' '  executive ' '  departments,  and  strictly  so  recognized 
in  the  statutes. 

Meantime  Congress  had  been  forced  to  establish  the 
Department  of  Agriculture  in  1862,  a  new  and  inde- 
pendent department  having  a  Commissioner  at  its  head 
who  should  be  appointed  by  the  President.  The  Com- 
missioner was  required  to  report  in  writing  annually 
to  Congress  and  to  the  President.  The  general  design 
of  the  Department  contemplated  the  acquisition,  and 
diffusion  among  the  people,  of  "  useful  information  on 
subjects  connected  with  agriculture  in  the  most  general 
and  comprehensive  sense  of  that  word."  Further- 
more, the  Department  was  "to  procure,  propagate,  and 
distribute  among  the  people  new  and  valuable  seeds 
and  plants. ' ne 

The  establishment  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture 
in  the  second  year  of  the  Civil  War  marked  a  notable 
variation,  if  not  a  new  phase,  of  administrative  prog- 
ress and  development.  While  the  ideal  of  some  such 
department  was  by  no  means  new  at  that  time,  for  it 
may  be  faintly  traced  from  the  closing  years  of  the 
eighteenth  century  and  with  considerably  greater 
clearness  and  consistency  from  about  1840,  yet  it  was 
not  regarded  by  the  makers  of  the  Constitution  as 
essential  to  the  government.  The  Secretaryship  of 
Agriculture,  in  a  word,  was  not  involved  in  what  I  have 
chosen  to  call  the  original  ideal  of  an  American  secre- 
tariat. Again,  the  Department  of  Agriculture  is  not 
and  never  has  been  primarily  a  political  department. 
It  was  originally  conceived  as  a  department  concerned 

16  12  Statutes  at  Large,  pp.  387  ff. 


CONCLUSIONS  375 


with  the  education  of  the  farming  classes.  Its  chief 
function  has  always  been  to  supply  careful  informa- 
tion, and  so  to  instruct  and  aid  the  farmers.  Its  estab- 
lishment was  a  clear  recognition  by  the  national  gov- 
ernment of  the  importance  of  certain  industrial  and 
social  factors  to  the  general  welfare  of  the  country. 
The  organization  of  the  Department  was  exacted  from 
Congress  at  a  critical  period  as  the  result  largely  of  a 
very  persistent  and  intelligent  popular  demand.  /After 
an  existence  of  twenty-seven  years  under  a  Commis- 
sioner, the  Department  of  Agriculture  was  given  the 
standing  in  law  of  an  '  '  execjitiye ' '  department  in  1889. 
It  was  then,  for  the  first  time,  provided  with  a  Secre- 
tary who  went  at  once~by 'custom  into  the  Cabinet  as 
its  eighth  member.17  ] 

In  1888  the  Department  of  Labor — an  outgrowth  of 
the  Bureau  of  Labor  of  1884,  which  had  been  a  sub- 
division in  the  Interior  Department — was  authorized 
by  law.  This,  like  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  was 
an  independent  department.  It  followed,  in  this 
respect,  accordingly,  the  precedent  of  the  earlier 
establishment  of  1862.  Moreover,  it  too  came  as  the 
result  of  popular  pressure  and  demand.  Fifteen  years 
later,  in  1903,  the  Department  of  Labor  was  reduced 
to  the  status  of  a  bureau  in  the  newly  created  executive 
Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor.  With  the  estab- 
lishment of  this  last  executive  department  in  charge 
of  the  Secretary  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  provision 
was  made  for  the  ninth  principal  officer  who  was  given 
the  customary  cabinet  place  and  rank.  Thus,  since 

17  Chapter  XI,  supra,  pp.  292  ff. 


376  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 


1849,  two  executive  Secretaryships  have  been  formed; 
and  both  of  them  have  been  largely  the  result  of  well- 
directed  and  widespread  popular  demand.18 

When,  in  February,  1907,  the  term  cabinet  was  for 
the  first  time  in  our  history  consciously  introduced  into 
the  statute  law  of  the  United  States,19  the  Cabinet  was 
known  to  consist  of  nine  principal  officers,  all  of  whom 
were  heads  of  executive  departments,  and  seven  of 
whom  were  called  Secretaries.  Since  1903  there  have 
been  no  independent  departments  in  our  government 
not  recognized  as  ' '  executive, ' '  although  our  adminis- 
trative history  has  revealed  in  the  past  two  such 
departments  with  commissioners  not  of  cabinet  rank 
or  place  at  their  heads./  Just  what  constitutes  an  exec- 
utive department  has,Sstr  far  as  I  know,  never  been 
definitely  determined.  This,  however,  is  clear :  When- 
ever a  department  has  been  created  since  1789,  and 
has  been  placed  in  charge  of  a  principal  officer  termed 
a  Secretary,  it  has  been  assumed  for  upwards  of  a  cen- 
tury— in  fact,  ever  since  the  establishment  of  the  execu- 
tive Department  of  the  Navy  in  1798 — that  such  Secre- 
tary would  become  as  a  matter  of  course  a  member  of 
the  President's  Cabinet  Council.  The  first  Secretaries 
of  the  Navy,  of  the  Interior,  of  Agriculture,  and  of 
Commerce  and  Labor  (Messrs.  Stoddert  of  Maryland, 
Ewing  of  Ohio,  Colman  of  Missouri,  and  Cortelyou  of 
New  York)  were  made  members  of  the  Cabinet  so  soon 
as  they  were  commissioned  to  their  respective  posi- 
tions. In  brief,  the  practice  of  Presidents  in  inviting 

18  Chapter  XII,  supra,  pp.  346  ff. 

19  Supra,  pp.  156  ff. 


CONCLUSIONS  377 


new  'Secretaries  into  the  Council  has  been  invariable 
and  in  strict  accord  with  this  old  assumption.  The 
practice  has  established  a  custom  that,  it  is  certain, 
could  not  be  broken  in  future  without  arousing  com- 
ment and  calling  for  explanation  or  justification. 

Although  the  term  cabinet  has  made  its  way  into  the 
federal  law,  it  is  by  no  means  clear  that  this  unique 
usage  would  be  interpreted  by  the  courts  as  any  recog- 
nition of  the  well-established  political  device  which  the 
term  characterizes.  When  first  the  term  came  into 
popular  vogue,  it  was  the  designation  of  a  board  of 
four  presidential  assistants  summoned  at  convenient 
times  for  the  purpose  of  helping  the  President  by 
advice  to  carry  out  or  to  accomplish  effectively  his  , 
duties.  To-day  the  term  characterizes  a  similar  and 
enlarged  board,  now  and  for  many  years  past  called 
together  regularly  for  the  same  general  purpose  on 
Tuesdays  and  Fridays  during  the  sessions  of  Congress, 
and  occasionally — depending  solely  upon  the  wishes  of 
the  President — at  other  times. 


II 


The  President's  Cabinet  as  a  political  device  was  at 
the  outset  an  experiment.  It  came  into  existence 
naturally,  and  so  very  easily  that  its  advent  was 
unheralded — neither  commented  on  nor  explained. 
Although  it  was  some  years  before  it  assumed  the 
guise  and  the  attributes  of  an  institution,  such  a  board 
had  not  been  unforeseen.  It  called,  however,  for  no 
special  justification  until  it  had  proved  to  a  measurable 


378  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

degree  its  utility,  and  was  somewhat  generally  appre- 
ciated or  understood. 

As  early  as  March,  1788,  Alexander  Hamilton 
expressed  himself  as  strongly  opposed  to  such  a  board 
if  it  were  to  be  made  a  constitutional  device:  forced, 
that  is  to  say,  by  law  on  the  President,  and  certain — 
as  he  conceived  it — to  restrain  the  President  by  giving 
advice  which  he  would  be  obliged  to  follow.  Hamilton, 
nevertheless,  was  perfectly  clear  in  his  view  that  the 
administrative  officers  should  be  regarded  as  "the 
assistants  or  deputies  of  the  chief  magistrate. ' '  These 
assistants,  he  believed,  should  derive  their  office  from 
the  President 's  appointment,  ' i  at  least  from  his  nomi- 
nation, and  ought  to  be  subject  to  his  superintend- 
ence. ' m  He  might  have  added  that  confidence  between 
the  President  and  his  deputies  was  an  essential  ele- 
ment in  the  relationship.  At  any  rate  the  debates  in 
the  first  Congress  of  1789  make  it  evident  that  by  that 
time  this  element  was  not  overlooked  in  the  statutory 
arrangements  of  the  principal  offices.21 

In  1792,  after  experience  in  the  capacity  of  special 
adviser  to  President  Washington,  Hamilton  remarked 
that  the  energy  and  success  of  the  new  government 
must  depend  on  the  union  and  mutual  deference  sub- 
sisting between  the  principal  officers,  and  on  the  con- 
formity of  their  conduct  with  the  views  of  their  chief, 
the  President.22  Eight  years  later,  in  1800,  he  set 
forth  briefly  the  opinion  that  any  efficient  chief  magis- 

20  The  Federalist  (ed.  Ford),  No.  70,  pp.  466  ff.    No.  72,  pp.  481-482. 
March  15  and  19,  1788. 

21  Chapter  IV,  supra,  pp.  98  ff. 

22  Chapter  VI,  supra,  p.  135. 


CONCLUSIONS  379 


trate  would  find  it  useful,  if  not  necessary,  to  consult 
his  principal  officers  or — as  he  then  termed  them — 
"his  constitutional  advisers. "'  This  latter  statement, 
taken  into  consideration  with  earlier  reflections,  is 
good  enough  ground  for  reckoning  Hamilton  as  among 
the  number  of  American  statesmen  who  at  that  time 
justified  the  Cabinet  in  theory  as  well  as  in  practice. 
In  the  first  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century  it  is  not 
difficult  to  discover  in  scattered  sources — in  congres- 
sional debates,  in  the  writings  of  Jefferson,  Judge 
Augustus  B.  Woodward,  and  other  American  publi- 
cists— evidence  of  an  understanding,  if  not  always 
approval,  of  the  device. 

There  have  been,  from  the  beginnings,  three  clear 
ideals  underlying  the  conception  of  the  American 
Presidency.  Without  them,  indeed,  it  is  hardly  con- 
ceivable that  a  board  of  presidential  counsellors  such 
as  the  Cabinet  could  originally  have  been  formed,  and 
gradually  have  been  increased  to  its  present  size. 
There  was,  first,  the  ideal  of  unity  in  the  executive 
power.  There  was,  second,  the  ideal  of  the  responsi- 
bility of  the  President  to  the  people  for  the  proper  and 
faithful  execution  of  the  laws.  There  was,  third,  the 
ideal  of  allowing  the  President  a  limited  but  generous 
political  discretion  in  his  task  of  supervising,  direct- 
ing, and  removing — if  necessary — his  assistants,  the 
principal  officers.  The  first  of  these  was  perhaps  the 
most  fundamental,  the  outgrowth  of  experience.  But 
all  of  them  may  be  easily  illustrated  by  passages  taken 
from  early  and  authoritative  sources. 

23  Hid.,  supra,  p.  140. 


380  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

"I  clearly  concur  in  opinion, "  wrote  Hamilton  in 
The  Federalist,  ' l .  .  .  .  with  a  writer24  whom  the  cele- 
brated Junius  pronounces  to  be  'deep,  solid,  and 
ingenious,'  that  'the  executive  power  is  more  easily 
confined  when  it  is  ONE ' ;  that  it  is  far  more  safe  there 
should  be  a  single  object  for  the  jealousy  and  watchful- 
ness of  the  people ;  and,  in  a  word,  that  all  multiplica- 
tion of  the  Executive  is  rather  dangerous  than  friendly 
to  liberty."25 

"It  is  evidently  the  intention  of  the  constitution, " 
declared  Madison,  speaking  in  the  first  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives on  June  16,  1789,  "that  the  first  Magistrate 
should  be  responsible  for  the  executive  department; 
so  far,  therefore,  as  we  do  not  make  the  officers  who 
are  to  aid  him  in  the  duties  of  that  department  respon- 
sible to  him,  he  is  not  responsible  to  his  country."26 

"By  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,"  said 
Marshall  in  1803,  "the  president  is  invested  with  cer- 
tain important  political  powers,  in  the  exercise  of 
which  he  is  to  use  his  own  discretion,  and  is  account- 
able only  to  his  country  in  his  political  character  and 
to  his  own  conscience.  To  aid  him  in  the  performance 
of  these  duties,  he  is  authorized  to  appoint  certain 
officers,  who  act  by  his  authority,  and  in  conformity 
with  his  orders.  In  such  cases,"  continued  the  Chief  - 

24  De  Lolme. 

25 P.  474.  March  15,  1788.  Cf.  Amos  Kendall's  statement:  "The 
executive  is  an  unity.  The  framers  of  the  Constitution  had  studied 
history  too  well  to  impose  on  their  country  a  divided  executive. ' '  June 
24,  1837.  5  Cranch,  Beports  of  Cases  .  ...  in  the  United  States  Cir- 
cuit Court  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  p.  197. 

26  Annals  of  Congress,  I,  480. 


CONCLUSIONS  381 


Justice,  "their  acts  are  his  acts;  and  whatever  opinion 
may  be  entertained  of  the  manner  in  which  executive 
discretion  may  be  used,  still  there  exists,  and  can 
exist,  no  power  to  control  that  discretion.  The  subjects 
are  political  ....  the  decision  of  the  executive  is 
conclusive. '  ™ 

These  three  formulations  of  the  ideals  of  executive 
unity,  executive  responsibility,  and  executive  discre- 
tion, written  in  the  early  years  of  our  government  by 
three  of  the  foremost  students  of  the  Constitution, 
reveal  with  admirable  precision  the  important  ideals 
at  the  basis  of  the  general  conception  of  the  American 
Presidency.  It  was  these  three  ideals  which  helped4 
markedly  toward  the  development  of  that  office  in  con- 
sistency and  efficiency.  While  it  is  true  that  these 
ideals  were  gravely  endangered  in  Jackson's  second 
term,  especially  in  1833  and  1834,  when  controversy 
raged  over  the  question  of  the  President's  right  to 
remove  his  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  William  J. 
Duane,  and  of  the  relation  of  that  Secretaryship  to  the 
President;28  and  while  the  three  ideals  were  tempora- 
rily shattered  under  President  Johnson  by  the  passage 
of  the  Tenure  of  Office  Act  of  March  2, 1867,  and  by  the 
Senate's  arrogant  claim  of  a  right  to  destroy  John- 
son's discretion  in  removing  an  obnoxious  cabinet  offi- 
cial, the  Secretary  of  War,  Edwin  M.  Stanton  ;w  never- 

27  Marbury  vs.  Madison  in   1   Cranch,  Reports    (2d  ed.,  New  York: 
1812),  p.  165. 

28  See    Jackson 's    ' '  Protest ' '    of    April    15,    1834,    in   Messages    and 
Papers,  III,  69  ff  for  a  telling  argument  against  his  persecutors.     Supra, 
chapter  IV,  103  ff. 

29  Grover  Cleveland  presented  a  discerning  view  of  this  whole  subject 
in  its  historic  relations  in  his  essay  entitled  "The  Independence  of  the 


382  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

theless,  it  is  also  true,  I  believe,  that  these  three  ideals 
may  be  said  to  have  stood  the  test  of  upwards  of  one 
hundred  and  twenty  years  of  government  under  the 
Constitution.  For  Jackson  carried  the  day  against  his 
opponents ;  and  with  the  modification  of  the  Tenure  of 
Office  Act  in  1869,  and  its  final  repeal  in  1887,  the  Pres- 
idency was  restored  once  more  to  its  pristine  preroga- 
tives and  powers. 

Aware  of  his  responsibility  to  the  people,  entrusted, 
as  he  knew  himself  to  be  by  the  Constitution  and  the 
laws,  with  abundant  discretion,  aided  by  experience 
and  circumstances  in  bringing  his  assistants  into  co- 
operation, Washington  soon  discovered  as  President 
that  the  method  of  asking  for  the  opinions  or  advice 
of  his  qualified  assistants  "in  writing"  was  as  a  rule 
impracticable  and  unnecessary.  He  listened  to  oral 
advice  or  counsel  as  a  matter  of  course.  But  in  busi- 
ness of  general  importance  he  found  the  method  of 
summoning  a  council  at  convenient  times  both  natural 
and  effective.  Accordingly,  within  a  few  years  after 
the  opening  of  his  Presidency,  he  adopted  the  method. 
It  appealed  to  his  successors  as  useful,  and  was  fol- 
lowed by  all  of  them  with  more  or  less  regularity. 
Thus  in  the  course  of  time  the  practice  of  cabinet  coun- 
cils assumed  an  institutional  character.  The  Cabinet, 
in  brief,  achieved  a  distinct  place  in  history. 

Executive,"  in  Presidential  Problems  (1904),  pp.  3-76,  passim.  The 
legal  aspect  of  the  subject  was  commented  on  by  W.  M.  Evarts  in 
12  Opinions  of  the  Attorneys-General,  pp.  439,  446.  The  Supreme  Court 
expressly  declined  to  pass  judgment  on  the  constitutional  question  of  the 
President's  power  of  removal,  although  it  quoted  at  length  from  the 
legislative  and  judicial  history  of  the  subject  in  the  case  of  Parsons  vsr 
United  States  (1896).  See  167  U.  S.  Reports,  pp.  334-335,  340  ff. 


CONCLUSIONS  383 


It  requires  no  great  familiarity  with  the  lore  of 
cabinet  meetings  as  these  meetings  are  revealed  in 
three  such  records  as  the  Memoirs  of  John  Quiney 
Adams,  the  Diary  of  President  Polk,  and  the  fragmen- 
tary Diary  of  Gideon  Welles  as  thus  far  available,30 
to  discover  how  comparatively  seldom  written  opinions 
have  hitherto  been  demanded  from  the  cabinet  asso- 
ciates of  various  Presidents.  Washington  was  prob- 
ably much  more  inclined  to  depend  for  advice  upon 
such  opinions  than  were  any  of  his  successors.  "At 
each  meeting  of  the  Cabinet, "  wrote  Polk  on  Septem- 
ber 23,  1848,  "I  learn  from  each  memBer  what  is  being 
done  in  his  particular  Department,  and  especially  if 
any  question  of  doubt  or  difficulty  has  arisen.  I  have 
never, "  he  added,  "called  for  any  written  opinions 
from  my  Cabinet,  preferring  to  take  their  opinions 
after  discussion,  in  Cabinet  &  in  the  presence  of  each 
other.  In  this  way  harmony  of  opinion  is  more  likely 
to  exist/'  While  this  illuminating  statement  should 
be  taken  only  in  its  applicability  to  a  single  adminis- 
tration, it  has  been  generally  true  since  Washington's 
day  that  written  opinions  have  been  exceptional  as  a 
mode  of  taking  advice.32  Moreover,  it  has  not  been  the 

30 Atlantic  Monthly,  February-November,  1909  (The  War  period: 
July  13,  1862-April  22,  1865).  Hid.,  February,  1910- January,  1911 
(The  period  of  Eeconstruction :  April  21,  1865-April  17,  1869).  For 
comment  on  the  untrustworthiness  of  this  precious  record  as  printed  thus 
far,  see  The  Nation  (New  York)  XC,  May  12,  1910.  The  Diary  is  now 
(September,  1911)  promised  for  publication  in  several  volumes. 

31  Diary,  IV,  131. 

32  Based  on  much  scattered  evidence,  but  largely  on  the  sources  cited 
in  the  narrative.     These  three  sources  alone  afford  materials  on  approxi- 
mately 740  separate  cabinet  meetings.     Folk's  Diary  yields  evidence  on 
about  365  meetings  of  the  Cabinet  held  during  his  term,  yet  his  records 


384  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

practice  of  President  Taft  thus  far  to  ask  for  written 
opinions  on  questions  of  policy.33 

Ill 

As  related  to  the  theory  of  the  Cabinet,  attention 
may  be  directed  at  this  point  to  a  problem  of  presi- 
dential practice  which  arose  early  in  the  history  of  the 
institution.  There  is  some  evidence  to  show  that  Presi- 
dent Washington  was  inclined,  for  several  years  after 
the  opening  of  his  Presidency,  to  call  upon  Vice- 
President  John  Adams  for  both  written  and  oral 
opinions  on  matters  of  policy.  On  at  least  one  occa- 
sion (April  11, 1791)  Adams  was  summoned  to  a  meet- 
ing of  the  Secretaries  at  the  President's  suggestion. 
At  the  time  Washington  was  absent  from  Philadelphia, 
then  the  temporary  seat  of  the  national  government. 
He  assumed,  it  may  be  inferred,  that  during  his 
absence  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Senate  was 
not  in  session,  the  Vice-President  would  be  the  proper 
person  to  consult  with  the  Secretaries.  Jefferson 
believed  that  this  appearance  of  the  Vice-President  at 
a  cabinet  session  was  unique.  Whether  this  was  true 
or  not,  Jefferson's  avowed  conception  of  the  vice- 
presidential  office — first  expressed  in  1797 — as  being 
an  office  constitutionally  limited  to  legislative  func- 
tions, would  hardly  have  permitted  him,  while  he  acted 
as  Vice-President  to  John  Adams,  to  take  any  part 

do  not  begin  until  August  26,  1845;  they  close  with  the  entry  of  June 
2,  1849,  some  months  after  Folk's  retirement  from  office. 

33  Private  letter  to  the  author,  dated  February  7,  1911,  from  the  Sec- 
retary of  War,  Jacob  M.  Dickinson,  who  has  since  resigned  his  place. 


CONCLUSIONS  385 


in  ' '  executive  consultations. ' >34  We  may  be  reasonably 
certain,  moreover,  that  during  Ms  own  Presidency 
Jefferson  never  thought  of  inviting  the  Vice-President 
to  sessions  of  the  Cabinet  for  this,  if  for  no  other, 
reason.  As  late  as  1825  Judge  Woodward,  a  shrewd 
observer  of  executive  practices,  asserted  that  it  had 
been  the  "uniform  course "  up  to  that  time  to  exclude 
the  Vice-President  from  the  Cabinet.35 

Close  scrutiny  of  much  printed  cabinet  data  since 
1825  has  failed  thus  far  to  reveal  a  single  authenti- 
cated instance  of  a  Vice-President  in  attendance  at  a 
cabinet  meeting.  President  Polk,  who  was  throughout 
his  four-year  term  on  a  friendly  footing  with  Vice- 
President  George  M.  Dallas,  consulted  Dallas  freely 
on  many  matters  of  policy  which  came  at  one  time  and 
another  before  the  regular  sessions  of  the  Cabinet. 
The  Vice-President  was  asked  occasionally  to  read 
portions  of  Polk's  messages,  in  their  less  mature 
stages,  and  to  make  suggestions  on  these  and  other 
subjects.  But,  although  Polk's  Diary  indicates  that 
the  President  sometimes  invited  outsiders  into  cabi- 
net meetings,36  it  gives  not  a  single  record  of  Dallas 's 
presence  at  such  meetings. 

Within  recent  years  there  has  arisen  a  popular 
impression  that  Vice-President  Hobart,  known  to  have 
been  on  intimate  and  friendly  terms  with  President 
McKinley,  was  at  times  admitted  to  sessions  of  the 
Cabinet.  In  referring  to  the  intimacy  between  Hobart 

3*  Supra,  pp.  124  ff. 

35  Supra,  pp.  144  ff. 

36  Diary,  I,  161.     11,47-48,132-133,264-265,272-273,432,486.    Ill, 
168,  261.     IV,  125,  196-197. 


386  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

and  McKinley,  Mr.  Hobart 's  biographer  has  this  to 
say: 

They  were  both  friends  and  confederates.  So  certain  was  the 
President  of  the  loyalty  and  good  judgment  of  his  colleague, 
that  the  latter  was  consulted  in  all  questions  of  general 
policy It  may  be  safely  said  that  no  measure  of  im- 
portance was  discussed  with  the  Cabinet  of  which  the  Vice- 
President  was  not  cognizant;  and  that  members  of  the 
Cabinet,  as  well  as  the  President,  freely  took  counsel  with 
him.  The  unusual  title  given  him  in  some  of  the  papers  in 
recognition  of  his  influence  was  "Assistant  President."37 

The  passage  here  cited  gives  no  authority  to  the  view 
that  Hobart  attended  sessions  of  the  McKinley  Cabi- 
net. He  may  have  done  so.  A  good  many  Presidents 
have  at  different  times  invited  outsiders  into  cabinet 
meetings.  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  on  occa- 
sions in  the  past  it  has  been  deemed  a  matter  of  simple 
wisdom  and  political  discretion  for  a  President  to 
summon  a  friendly  Vice-President  into  a  session  of  the 
Cabinet.  Mr.  McKinley  seems  to  have  consulted  Vice- 
President  Hobart  very  much  as  Polk  consulted  Vice- 
President  Dallas.  The  evidence  does  not  allow  us  at 
present  to  say  anything  more  determinate.  Here  the 
matter  must  rest  until  some  one  who  was  a  member  of 
the  McKinley  Cabinet  chooses  to  speak  plainly.  What 
is  certain  is  this :  that  from  the  beginning  of  the  gov- 
ernment the  rule — the  all  but  "uniform  course"  — has 
been  to  exclude  the  Vice-President  from  the  Council. 

In  several  of  the  early  projects  for  an  executive 
council,  notably  in  Ellsworth's  project  of  August  18, 

37  David  Magie,  Life  of  Garret  Augustus  Hobart  (1910),  pp.  168-169. 


CONCLUSIONS  387 


1787,  the  "president  of  the  Senate"  was  to  be  found.38 
The  Constitution,  however,  finally  left  the  Vice- 
President  in  a  somewhat  anomalous  place:  he  is  not 
a  member  of  the  Senate,  although  he  presides  over 
that  body;  and  he  has  no  vote  on  any  matter  unless 
the  Senate  is  equally  divided.39  Inasmuch  as  the  Con- 
stitution did  not  expressly  forbid  the  Vice-President 
to  take  part  in  executive  business,  the  President  was 
left  at  liberty  to  consult  him  if  he  chose  to  do  so,  while 
still  shouldering  the  whole  responsibility  for  his  acts. 
It  is  presumably  well  that  President  and  Vice- 
President  should  be  always  members  of  the  same 
party,  as  indeed  they  have  had  to  be  ever  since  the 
Twelfth  Amendment  went  into  effect,  for  the  Vice- 
President  should  understand  and  appreciate  the  party 
principles  of  the  man  whom  he  may  be  called  upon 
suddenly  to  succeed.  But  appreciation  of  principles  is 
one  thing;  the  sort  of  intimacy  which  should  exist 
between  a  President  and  a  close  adviser  is  quite 
another.  It  was  undoubtedly  fortunate  that  Polk  and 
Dallas  remained  in  close  touch  and  on  terms  of  peculiar 
intimacy  during  Polk's  trying  administration.  Such 
instances  of  intimacy,  however,  have  been  few  and  very 
infrequent  in  the  history  of  the  two  offices.40  The  Vice- 
President  represents  no  Department.  With  his  nomi- 
nation to  office  the^ President  has,  as  a  rule,  nothing 
whatever  to  do.  He  occupies  no  such  powerful  position 
as  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  While 

38  Supra,  chapter  III,  p.  75. 

39  Article  I,  sec.  2. 

40  The   three   well-known   intimacies   are   those   of  Jackson   and   Van 
Buren,  Polk  and  Dallas,  and  McKinley  and  Hobart. 


388  TEE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

there  have  been  a  few  men  of  great  eminence  in  the 
Vice-Presidency  in  the  past,  nevertheless  the  office  has 
been  generally  regarded  as  rather  undesirable.  Indeed, 
it  has  been  deliberately  declined  or  has  gone  begging  on 
at  least  three  separate  occasions.41  What  a  man  can 
accomplish  in  it  must  depend  not  alone  on  circum- 
stances often  beyond  control,  but  also  on  such  factors 
as  the  candidate 's  party  position,  his  political  sagacity, 
and  his  personal  force — all  of  these  factors  sure  to 
affect  his  capacity  to  guide  and  influence  the  Senate. 
To  force  the  Vice-President  into  the  Cabinet  would 
seem,  from  the  preceding  considerations,  to  be  as 
unwise  as  it  is  really  unnecessary.  To  do  so,  would 
be  to  limit  the  discretionary  power  of  the  President 
and  to  interfere  with  the  unity  of  the  executive — a 
limitation  and  an  interference  that  would  tend  to  alter 
two  of  the  great  ideals  that  have  been  recognized  for 
years  as  at  the  very  basis  of  the  American  Presidency. 
At  all  events,  such  helpful  influence  as  the  Vice- 
President  can  exert  on  matters  involving  execu- 
tive policy  has  been  heretofore  exerted  outside  the 
Cabinet.42 

41  Senator  Silas  Wright  of  New  York  declined  an  almost  unanimous 
nomination  in  1844  on  the  Polk  ticket.    Senator  Benjamin  Fitzpatrick  of 
Alabama  declined  a  similar  nomination  to  run  on  the  Douglas  ticket  in 
1860.    In  1884  the  convention  of  the  Anti-Monopoly  party — a  party  that 
had    had    no    prior    history    and    did    not    last — nominated    Benjamin 
F.  Butler  of  Massachusetts  for  President.     Leaving  the  settlement  of 
the  nomination  for  Vice-President  to  its  national  committee,  that  body 
finally  determined  to   adopt   General  Alanson  M.   West  of  Mississippi, 
candidate  of  the  National  or  Greenback  party,  for  the  second  position. 
E.  Stanwood,  History  of  the  Presidency,  pp.  213-214,  286,  423. 

42  The  Vice-Presidency  has  been  much  discussed  in  the  newspapers  of 
late  years.     As  a  topic  it  was  brought  into  special  prominence  by  Mr. 


CONCLUSIONS  389 


IV 

The  Senators  have  frequently  been  termed  the  '  *  con- 
stitutional counsellors ' '  of  the  President  from  the 
earliest  days  of  the  government.  In  a  somewhat  differ- 
ent sense  the  principal  officers  have  likewise  been 
termed  "constitutional  counsellors "  or  "constitu- 
tional advisers"  by  careful  writers.  The  Vice-Presi- 
dents  have  never  been  so  called  or  so  considered. 

Hamilton,  as  I  have  pointed  out  more  than  once,43 
referred  to  the  principal  officers  or  heads  of  depart- 
ments in  1800  as  "constitutional  advisers. "  In  his 
"  Opinion "  of  March  8,  1854,  Attorney-General  Gush- 
ing, writing  of  Washington's  principal  officers, 
asserted  that  those  officers  "were  the  immediate 
superior  ministerial  officers  of  the  President,  and  his 
constitutional  counsellors  during  the  whole  period  of 
the  administration.  "**  Once  more,  in  his  "  Opinion " 
of  August  31,  1855,  Gushing,  directing  attention  to  the 
statement  in  the  Constitution  that  the  President  may 
require  in  writing  the  advice  of  his  principal  officers, 
declared  that  for  that  reason  "those  officers  are  some- 
times characterized,  and  not  improperly,  as  'constitu- 
tional advisers'  of  the  President. "tf  In  a  special 

W.  J.  Bryan's  declaration  in  midsummer,  1908,  that  he  proposed  to 
admit  his  running-mate,  John  W.  Kern,  into  the  Cabinet,  should  he  be 
elected  to  the  Presidency  in  the  following  November.  Long  before  this 
declaration,  Mr.  Bryan  had  discussed  the  subject  in  the  first  number  of 
his  paper,  The  Commoner  of  January  23,  1901.  For  editorials  on  the 
subject,  see  the  New  York  Times,  June  13,  and  July  17,  1908;  The  Sun 
(New  York),  July  19,  1908;  and  the  Hartford  Courant,  July  3,  1908. 
«  Supra,  pp.  5,  140,  379. 

44  6  Opinions,  p.  330. 

45  7  Opinions,  p.  460. 


390  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

message  to  the  Senate  of  December  12, 1867,  President 
Johnson  referred  to  his  cabinet  officers  as  "constitu- 
tional advisers."46  Hamilton  was  perhaps  writing 
rapidly,  currente  calamo,  and  took  some  liberties 
with  language.  Gushing  and  Johnson,  on  the  other 
hand,  wrote  deliberately — they  intended  that  their 
words  should  be  taken  literally.  In  any  case,  this  usage 
of  language,  although  it  has  been  objected  to,47  rests 
upon  a  perfectly  rational  theory  of  the  advisory 
function. 

It  is  true  that  the  principal  (or  cabinet)  officers  were 
not,  like  the  Senate,  created  by  the  Constitution. 
The  principal  offices  are  statutory.  The  statutes 
attempted  to  define  the  duties  of  their  chief  officers  or 
heads.  But  one  duty  the  statutes  have  never  defined — 
the  notable  duty  obligatory  upon  every  head  of  a 
department  to  give  advice  to  the  President  when  asked 
to  do  so — for  the  sufficient  reason  that  that  duty  has 
been  imposed  upon  the  heads  of  departments,  what- 
ever their  number,  by  the  Constitution  itself.  The 
exaction  of  such  an  obligation  was  left  to  the  discretion 
of  the  President.  When  once  the  President  called  for 
an  opinion,  it  must  be  forthcoming,  for  it  is  required 

46  Messages  and  Papers,  VI,  585. 

47  E.  g.  Senator  Lodge  says :  ' '  The  members  of  the  Cabinet  are  often 
loosely  spoken  of  as  constitutional  advisers  of  the  President.     They  are, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  nothing  of  the  sort.     They  are  not  created  by  the 

Constitution,  but  by  the  laws The  Constitution  contemplates  the 

establishment  of  executive  departments,  and  says  that  the  President  may 
require  the  opinion  in  writing  of  the  heads  of  such  departments,  but 
these  departments  can  exist  only  by  the  pleasure  of  Congress,  and  the 
President  is  not  bound  to  consult  their  chiefs."     The  Senate,  he  con- 
cludes, is  "constitutional";  the  Cabinet  is  "statutory."     A  Frontier 
Town,  etc.  (1906),  p.  73. 


CONCLUSIONS  391 


by  the  fundamental  law  that  it  should  be.  On  such  an 
occasion,  argued  President  Johnson  in  his  special 
message  already  cited,  the  head  of  a  department  "acts 
under  the  gravest  obligations  of  law,  for  when  he  is 
called  upon  by  the  President  for  advice  it  is  the  Con- 
stitution which  speaks  to  him.  All  his  other  duties  are 
left  by  the  Constitution  to  be  regulated  by  statute,  but 
this  duty  was  deemed  so  momentous  that  it  is  imposed 
by  the  Constitution  itself."*8 

Two  ideas  in  respect  to  the  Cabinet — the  idea  of 
unity  of  opinion  and  the  idea  of  mutual  confidence — 
appeared  and  were  to  some  extent  developed  in  John- 
son 's  message.  Both  ideas,  moreover,  have  been  more 
or  less  recurrent  in  the  course  of  the  history  of  the 
theory  of  the  American  Presidency.  Indeed,  they 
were  alien  neither  to  Hamilton's  nor  to  Cushing's 
thought  of  the  principal  offices.49 

Unity  of  opinion,  according  to  President  Johnson, 
is  absolutely  essential  to  the  executive  upon  great 
questions  of  public  policy  or  administration.  He  thus 
elaborated  his  thought: 

I  do  not  claim  that  a  head  of  Department  should  have  no 
other  opinions  than  those  of  the  President.  He  has  the  same 
right,  in  the  conscientious  discharge  of  duty,  to  entertain 
and  express  his  own  opinions  as  has  the  President.  What  I 
do  claim  is  that  the  President  is  the  responsible  head  of  the 
Administration,  and  when  the  opinions  of  a  head  of  Depart- 
ment are  irreconcilably  opposed  to  those  of  the  President  in 
grave  matters  of  policy  and  administration,  there  is  but  one 
result  which  can  solve  the  difficulty,  and  that  is  a  severance 

<8  Messages  and  Papers,  VI,  587. 
«  Supra,  pp.  110,  135,  140,  182. 


392  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

of  the  official  relation.  This  in  the  past  history  of  the  Govern- 
ment has  always  been  the  rule,  and  it  is  a  wise  one,  for  such 
differences  of  opinion  among  its  members  must  impair  the 
efficiency  of  any  Administration.50 

To  define  all  the  relations  existing  between  the  heads 
of  departments  and  the  President  would  be  a  matter 
of  great  difficulty.  The  legal  relations  have  been  well 
enough  defined  by  the  statute  laws  which  created  the 
different  principal  offices.  The  principal  officers,  how- 
ever, were  placed  by  the  Constitution  in  the  position 
of  assistants  and  advisers  to  the  President.  Accord- 
ingly, beyond  the  defined  legal  relations  there  are 
others  not  expressed,  but  necessarily  attendant  upon 
these.  This  was  Johnson's  view: 

Chief  among  these  is  mutual  confidence.  This  relation  is  so 
delicate  that  it  is  sometimes  hard  to  say  when  or  how  it 
ceases.  A  single  flagrant  act  may  end  it  at  once,  and  then 
there  is  no  difficulty.  But  confidence  may  be  just  as  effectu- 
ally destroyed  by  a  series  of  causes  too  subtle  for  demonstra- 
tion. As  it  is  a  plant  of  slow  growth,  so,  too,  it  may  be  slow 
in  decay a 

President  Johnson's  special  message  to  the  Senate 
of  December,  1867,  remains  one  of  the  most  remark- 
able contributions  to  the  political  theory  of  the  Presi- 
dency that  can  be  found  in  the  whole  range  of  Ameri- 
can state  papers.  In  respect  to  the  theory  of  the 
Cabinet,  it  was  discerning  and  illuminating.  The  basic 
ideals  of  the  Presidency — executive  unity,  executive 
responsibility,  and  executive  discretion — were  under- 
lying Johnson's  thought.  For  them  he  was  contend- 

50  Messages  and  Papers,  VI,  589. 

51  Ibid.,  VI,  592-593. 


CONCLUSIONS  393 


ing.  They  must  be  sustained  by  all  his  principal 
officers.  An  officer  who  refused  to  sustain  them,  it 
must  be  the  President's  privilege — his  right — to 
dismiss.  The  sense  of  subordination  of  all  the  prin- 
cipal officers  to  the  President  had  long  since  come  to 
exist  partly  by  construction  of  the  constitutional  duty 
of  the  President  to  take  care  that  the  laws  be  faith- 
fully executed,  and  partly  by  the  analogies  of  statutes. 
In  the  very  nature  of  things  there  must  be  corporate 
conjunction  on  matters  of  policy,  a  board  of  advisers 
subject  in  all  matters  of  doubt  to  one  determining 
will.52 


The  Cabinet's  usefulness  as  an  advisory  board  has 
of  course  varied  from  time  to  time  in  the  past  in 
accordance  with  the  different  personal  elements  of 
which  it  has  been  composed.  John  Adams,  Madison, 
Jackson,  Tyler,  Buchanan,  Lincoln,  Johnson,  and  Grant  - 
as  Presidents  all  experienced  more  or  less  serious  diffi-  J 
culties  with  their  cabinet  advisers.  It  is  well  enough 
known  that  both  John  Adams  and  Jackson  were  at 
times  much  disinclined  to  consult  the  body  on  matters 
of  large  and  general  importance.  The  Cabinet,  how- 
ever, could  not  be  ignored  for  long  by  any  of  the 
Presidents.  The  twenty-six  Cabinets  of  American 
history — reckoning  to  the  close  of  President  Eoose- 
velt's  administration  in  March,  1909, — have  all  con- 

52 1  have  used  here  several  ideas  derived  from  Caleb  Gushing 's  two 
"  Opinions  "  already  cited. 


394  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

tained  a  nucleus  or  coterie  of  able,  experienced,  and 
well-qualified  men.  These  men  could  fairly  claim  and 
obtain  consideration  from  their  chiefs,  the  twenty- 
six  Presidents  who  appointed  them,  as  co-ordinate 
factors  in  the  work  of  assisting  in  executive  tasks. 
For  the  truth  is  that  great  measures  for  the  country's 
welfare,  often  accredited  to  individual  men,  are  seldom 
attained  without  the  active  efforts  and  earnest  co- 
operation of  many  minds. 


APPENDIX 

A.  Table  of  Salaries  of  President,  Vice-President,  and  Prin- 

cipal Officers:  1789-1909. 

B.  Table  to  indicate  the  States  of  the  Union  from  which  the 

Principal  Officers  have  been  selected:  1789-1909. 

C.  The  Smithsonian  Institution  and  the  Cabinet. 

D.  List  of  Authorities. 


<  a 
H  s 

04 
PH 

8 
> 

fe 


^IPI 


I 


»l 

u 


p 

1° 


>!    >* 

III 


.5000 


CO  Tf  «0  00 


i-trH  <M        COCO        -tf        OO 


CO 10  «D      .      .      .00 


.00      ooo 


OOO 


o"oo" 


i  rH  (M  Tj<  l>  00  OS  OS 

OS  09  05  05  OS  05  T-I 


1  OS  CO  C5  CO  '^  i"H  ' 
i  T^  10  «D  C-  l>  00  ' 
i  00  00  00  OO  00  OO  i 


« 


NOTES  TO  TABLE  A 
THE  SALARY  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  STATE  (1909-1911) 

By  a  somewhat  unusual  circumstance  in  1909,  the  salary  of 
the  Secretary  of  State  was  temporarily  reduced  to  its  previous 
grade  of  $8,000,  in  order  to  allow  Hon.  Philander  C.  Knox, 
member  of  the  federal  Senate  from  Pennsylvania,  1905-1911, 
to  take  office  as  Secretary  of  State  in  President  Taft's  Cabi- 
net. In  accordance  with  the  Constitution,  Article  I,  section 
6,  paragraph  2 : 

No  senator  or  representative  shall,  during  the  time 
for  which  he  was  elected,  be  appointed  to  any  civil 
office  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States  which 
shall  have  been  created,  or  the  emoluments  whereof 
shall  have  been  increased,  during  such  time ;  and  no 
person  holding  any  office  under  the  United  States 
shall  be  a  member  of  either  house  during  his  continu- 
ance in  office. 

The  Legislative,  Executive  and  Judicial  Appropriation  Act 
of  February  26,  1907  (34  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  993)  fixed  the 
annual  compensation  of  heads  of  executive  departments  for 
the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1908,  at  $12,000.  When  Mr. 
Knox  accepted  the  portfolio  of  Secretary  of  State  a  special 
act  of  Congress  was  passed  repealing  the  above  act  in  so  far 
as  the  same  related  to  the  annual  compensation  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  State,  fixing  the  compensation  of  that  position  at  the 
rate  of  $8,000  (Act  of  February  17,  1909.  35  Statutes  at 
Large,  chap.  137,  p.  626).  On  March  5,  1911,  the  annual 
compensation  of  the  Secretary  of  State  was  placed  on  the 
$12,000  basis.  The  Deficiency  Appropriation  Act  of  March 
4,  1911  (36  Statutes  at  Large,  chap.  240,  pp.  1289,  1290) 
provided  additional  compensation  for  that  position  for  the 
period  from  March  5, 1911,  to  June  30, 1911,  of  $1,288.89,  and 
the  Legislative,  Executive  and  Judicial  Act  of  March  4,  1911 


398  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

(36  Statutes  at  Large,  chap.  237,  p.  1186)  provided  $12,000  as 
the  salary  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1912.  The 
salary  of  that  place  is  now  consequently  the  same  as  that  of 
the  other  heads  of  executive  departments. 

The  case  is  not  without  precedent.  For  a  discussion  of  it, 
the  reader  may  be  referred  to  the  debates  in  the  Congressional 
Record  of  February  11,  13,  15,  etc.,  1909. 

THE  PRESIDENT'S  PERQUISITES 

From  the  beginning  the  President  has  had,  besides  a  salary, 
certain  perquisites.  As  early  as  September  24,  1789  (1 
Statutes  at  Large,  ch.  xix,  72)  the  President  was  to  have  "the 
use  of  the  furniture  and  other  effects,  now  in  his  possession, 
belonging  to  the  United  States."  The  next  year  the  law 
(Ibid.,  ch.  xxviii,  130)  made  provision  for  the  appointment  of 
commissioners  with  power  to  purchase  land  in  the  District 
of  Columbia  partly  for  the  purpose  of  a  building  for  the 
President.  The  Act  of  April  24,  1800  (2  Statutes  at  Large, 
ch.  xxxvii,  55)  provided: 

That  for  the  purpose  of  providing  furniture  for  the 
house  erected  in  the  city  of  Washington,  for  the 
accommodation  of  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
a  sum  not  exceeding  fifteen  thousand  dollars  be  ex- 
pended, under  the  direction  of  the  heads  of  the 
several  departments  of  state,  of  the  treasury,  of  war, 
and  of  the  navy. 

"An  Act  to  provide  for  the  Traveling  Expenses  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States"  (June  23,  1906.  34  Statutes 
at  Large,  ch.  3523,  p.  454)  arranges : 

That  hereafter  there  may  be  expended  for  or  on 
account  of  the  traveling  expenses  of  the  President 
....  such  sum  as  Congress  may  from  time  to  time 
appropriate,  not  exceeding  twenty-five  thousand 
dollars  per  annum,  such  sum  when  appropriated  to 
be  expended  in  the  discretion  of  the  President  and 
accounted  for  on  his  certificate  only. 


APPENDIX 


399 


By  the  Deficiency  Appropriation  Act  of  March  4,  1909  (35 
Statutes  at  Large,  ch.  298,  sec.  1,  p.  908),  provision  was  made 
for  the  appropriation  for  a  housekeeper  for  the  Executive 
Mansion,  at  the  rate  of  $1,000  per  annum,  from  March  4,  1909, 
to  June  30,  1910. 


TABLE  B 

Table  to  indicate  the  States  of  the  Union  from  which 
the  Principal  Officers  have  been  chosen  between  1789 
and  1909.* 


New  York       . 
Virginia     . 
Massachusetts 
Pennsylvania 
Delaware  . 
Illinois 

Maine  .      .      , 
Indiana 


SECRETARIES  OF  STATE 

.     .       7  Ohio     .      .     . 

6  Maryland 

5  Kentucky 

3  Louisiana 

2  Georgia 

2  South  Carolina 

.      .       2  Michigan   .      . 

.      .       2  New  Jersey    . 


SECRETARIES  OP  THE  TREASURY 


New  York 
Pennsylvania 
Ohio     .      .      . 
Kentucky  . 
Massachusetts 
Georgia 
Maryland  . 
Maine  . 
Indiana 


Minnesota 
Connecticut    . 
Tennessee  . 
Delaware  . 
New  Hampshire 
Mississippi 
Illinois 
Iowa 


*  The  statistics  here  set  forth  have  been  chiefly  compiled  from 
Eobert  B.  Mosher  's  Executive  Register.  The  lists  of  Cabinets  as  printed 
in  such  books  as  the  newspaper  almanacs  are  quite  unreliable. 


400 


TEE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 


SECRETARIES  OP  WAR 

New  York 

.      .      .       8 

Iowa     

2 

Massachusetts 

.      .      .       5 

Louisiana  

1 

Pennsylvania  . 

.      .      .       5 

Mississippi      .      .      .      . 

1 

Ohio     .     .     . 

.      .      .       5 

Kentucky  

1 

Virginia     . 

.     .      .       3 

Minnesota       .... 

1 

Tennessee 

.      .      .       3 

Vermont    

1 

Georgia 

.      .      .       2 

West  Virginia 

1 

South  Carolina 

.      .      .       2 

Michigan   

1 

Illinois 

.      .      .       2 

ATTORNEYS-GENERAL 

Pennsylvania 

.      .      .       7 

South  Carolina    . 

1 

Massachusetts 

.      .      .       6 

Maine  

1 

Maryland 

.      .      .       6 

Connecticut    .... 

1 

Virginia    . 

;  .  .   * 

Missouri    

1 

Kentucky 

.      .      .       4 

Oregon      

1 

Ohio     .      .      . 

.      .      .       4 

Arkansas  

1 

New  York 

.      .      .       3 

Indiana     

1 

Georgia      .      . 

.     .     .       2 

California       .... 

1 

Delaware 

.     .     .       1 

New  Jersey    .... 

1 

Tennessee 

.     .     .       1 

_m  

SECRETARIES 

OF  THE  NAVY 

Massachusetts 

.     .      .       6 

South  Carolina    .      .      . 

1 

Virginia    .      . 

.     .     .       5 

Indiana     

1 

Maryland 

.     .     .       4 

West  Virginia 

1 

New  York 

.     .     .       4 

Louisiana  

1 

North  Carolina 

.     .     .       4 

Alabama    

1 

New  Jersey     . 

.     .     .       3 

Illinois       

1 

New  Hampshire 

.     .     .       2 

California       .... 

1 

Pennsylvania 

.      .      .       2 

Michigan   

1 

Connecticut    . 

.      .      .       2 

POSTMASTERS-GENERAL 

New  York       . 

.      .      .       5 

Vermont    

1 

Kentucky  . 

.      .      .       4 

Maine        

1 

Tennessee  . 

.      .      .       4 

Ohio     

1 

Pennsylvania  . 

.      .      .       4 

Virginia    

1 

Wisconsin  . 

.      .      .       4 

Iowa    

1 

Connecticut    . 

.      .      .       3 

Michigan   

1 

Maryland  . 

.      .      .       3 

West  Virginia 

1 

Indiana     .      . 

.      .      .       2 

Massachusetts 

1 

APPENDIX 


401 


SECRETARIES  OF  THE  INTERIOR 


Ohio     .      . 
Missouri    . 
Michigan   . 
Mississippi 
Indiana 
Iowa     . 
Pennsylvania 


4     Virginia 


Illinois 
2     Colorado    , 
2     Wisconsin 
2     Georgia 
2     New  York 


SECRETARIES  OF  AGRICULTURE 


Missouri 
Wisconsin 


1     Nebraska 
1     Iowa 


SECRETARIES  OF  COMMERCE  AND  LABOR 
New  York  2     California 


TOTAL  APPOINTMENTS  TO  PRINCIPAL  OFFICES  FROM  THE  STATES 


1.  New  York  .      . 

2.  Pennsylvania  . 

3.  Massachusetts  . 

4.  Ohio      .      .      . 

5.  Virginia 

6.  Maryland   .      . 

7.  Kentucky    . 

8.  Tennessee   . 

9.  Indiana       .      . 

10.  Connecticut 

11.  Illinois 

12.  Iowa      .      .      . 

13.  Georgia 

14.  Wisconsin  . 

15.  Missouri     .      . 

16.  South  Carolina 

17.  New  Jersey     . 


37*  18. 

29*  19. 

26*  20. 

21*  21. 


20* 
16* 


22. 
23. 
14*     24. 
9       25. 
26. 
27. 
28. 
29. 


8* 

7* 

7 

7 

6*     30. 

6* 

6 


5* 

5 


31. 
32. 


33. 


Michigan    ...  5 

Maine    ....  4* 

Delaware    ...  4 

Mississippi       .      .  4 

North  Carolina      .  4 

California        .     .  3* 

New  Hampshire    .  3* 

West  Virginia       .  3 

Vermont     ...  2 

Louisiana   ...  2 

Minnesota  ...  2* 

Alabama     ...  1 

Colorado  ....  1 

Nebraska    ...  1 

Oregon       ...  1 

Arkansas  1 


*  NOTE  :  The  figures  in  this  tabulation  will  be  misleading  unless  the 
reader  observes  that  certain  individuals,  holding  two  (rarely  three)  cabi- 
net offices,  have  been  reckoned  two  or  three  times,  in  accordance  with  the 
facts.  No  account  has  been  taken  of  the  Postmasters-General  prior  to 


402  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

STATES  NOT  REPRESENTED  IN  THE  PRINCIPAL  OFFICES: 

1789-1909 

Rhode  Island  Montana 

Florida  Idaho 

Texas  Washington 

Oklahoma  Wyoming 

Kansas  Utah 

South  Dakota  Nevada 

North  Dakota 

C 

THE  SMITHSONIAN  INSTITUTION  AND  THE  CABINET 

The  Smithsonian  Institution  was  organized  for  the 
purpose  of  administering  a  bequest  to  the  govern- 

1829,  when  first  the  office  was  recognized  as  carrying  cabinet  rank.    The 
following  names  will  make  the  figures  clearer: 

1.  NEW  YORK  :  B.  F.  Butler,  W.,  Atg. ;  J.  C.  Spencer,  W.,  Tr. ;  W.  L. 

Marcy,  W.,  St. ;  W.  M.  Evarts,  Atg.,  St. ;  G.  B.  Cortelyou,  C.  and 
L.,  Pmg.,  Tr.;  E.  Boot,  W.,  St. 

2.  PENNSYLVANIA:  E.  Kush,  Atg.,  Tr.;  J.  S.  Black,  Atg.,  St. 

3.  MASSACHUSETTS  :  T.  Pickering,  W.,  St. ;  S.  Dexter,  W.,  Tr. ;  D.  Web- 

ster, St.  (Ms);  E.  Olney,  Atg.,  St.;  W.  H.  Moody,  N.,  Atg. 

4.  OHIO  :  T.  Ewing,  Tr.,  Int. ;  E.  M.  Stanton,  Atg.,  W. ;  A.  Taf t,  W., 

Atg.;  J.  Sherman,  Tr.,  St. 

5.  VIRGINIA  :  E.  Eandolph,  Atg.,  St. ;  J.  Monroe,  St.,  W. ;  A.  P.  Upshur, 

St.,  N.;  J.  Y.  Mason,  N.,  Atg.,  N. 

6.  MARYLAND:  E.  Smith,  N.,  Atg.,  St.;  E.  B.  Taney,  Atg.,  Tr.;  C.  J. 

Bonaparte,  N.,  Atg. 

7.  KENTUCKY:  J.  J.  Crittenden,  Atg.  (fcis)  ;  J.  Holt,  W.,  Pmg. 

9.  INDIANA:  H.  McCulloch,  Tr.  (fcis) ;  W.  Q.  Gresham,  Pmg.,  Tr.* 

10.  CONNECTICUT:  I.  Toucey,  Atg.,  N. 

13.  GEORGIA:  W.  H.  Crawford,  W.,  Tr. 

14.  WISCONSIN:  W.  F.  Vilas,  Pmg.,  Int. 
16.  SOUTH  CAROLINA:  J.  C.  Calhoun,  W.,  St. 
19.  MAINE:  J.  G.  Elaine,  St.  (5is). 

23.  CALIFORNIA:  V.  H.  Metcalf,  C.  and  L.,  N. 

24.  NEW  HAMPSHIRE:  L.  Woodbury,  N.,  Tr. 
28.     MINNESOTA:  W.  Windom,  Tr.  (Us). 

*  Mr.  Gresham  was  commissioned  as  Secretary  of  State  (1893-1895) 
from  Illinois — his  third  cabinet  appointment. 


APPENDIX  403 


ment  of  the  United  States  by  the  will  of  James 
Smithson  of  London,  a  distinguished  chemist  and 
mineralogist,  who  died  in  Genoa,  Italy,  in  1829.  It 
has,  consequently,  always  occupied  a  peculiar  relation 
to  the  government.  Founded,  after  some  opposition, 
i  i  for  the  increase  and  diffusion  of  knowledge, ' '  it  was 
first  organized  in  Washington,  D.  C.,  by  a  law  approved 
on  August  10,  1846  (9  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  102).  The 
supervising  and  advisory  body  denominated  an 
"Establishment"  and  placed  over  the  Board  of 
Eegents — a  body  not  wholly  distinct  from  that  Board 
—was  to  consist  of  the  following  members :  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  the  Vice-President,  the  six 
principal  officers  (all  the  cabinet  officers  of  that  day), 
the  Chief-Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court,  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Patents,  the  Mayor  of  the  City  of  Washington 
"during  the  time  for  which  they  shall  hold  their 
respective  offices,  and  such  other  persons  as  they  may 
elect  honorary  members. ' '  In  the  course  of  years  this 
original  law  was  found  to  be  quite  out  of  accord  in 
some  respects  with  the  development  of  national  admin- 
istration. In  the  first  place,  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior,  provided  for  by  the  law  of  March  3, 1849,  had 
become  the  superior  of  the  Commissioner  of  Patents. 
Again,  there  was  no  "Mayor"  of  Washington  after 
1870.  Finally,  another  Secretaryship — that  of  Agri- 
culture— was  established  by  the  law  of  February  9, 
1889. 

Down  to  March  12, 1894,  the  date  of  a  change  in  the 
original  law  of  1846,  only  a  single  Secretary  of  the 
Interior — Columbus  Delano  of  Ohio,  serving  in  that 


404  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

office  from  1870  to  1875  under  President  Grant — had 
acted  as  an  honorary  member  of  the  Establishment, 
elected,  as  he  was,  in  1872.  The  statute  of  March  12 
provided : 

That  the  President,  the  Vice-President,  the  Chief-Justice, 
and  the  heads  of  the  Executive  Departments  are  hereby  con- 
stituted an  establishment  by  the  name  of  the  Smithsonian 
Institution,  etc.  (28  Statutes  at  Large,  p.  41). 

By  this  change  in  the  law,  the  Secretaries  of  the 
Interior  and  Agriculture  became  ex  officio  members  of 
the  Establishment,  so  that  to-day,  with  one  additional 
Secretaryship,  that  of  Commerce  and  Labor  arranged 
for  by  the  law  of  February  14,  1903,  all  the  cabinet 
officers  are  included  in  the  Establishment  of  the  Smith- 
sonian Institution. 

For  all  details  of  this  matter,  see  William  J.  Rhees's  The 
Smithsonian  Institution.  2  vols.  Washington :  1901. 

D 

LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES 

The  list  of  titles  here  printed  includes  every  book, 
pamphlet,  or  magazine  article  that  has  been  directly 
cited  in  the  notes  of  these  Studies,  together  with  titles 
of  a  very  few  volumes  not  so  cited.  I  have  not  found 
it  possible,  for  example,  anywhere  in  the  notes  ade- 
quately to  indicate  my  indebtedness  to  two  such 
works  as  Professor  Dicey 's  Law  and  Public  Opinion 
and  Professor  Sidgwick's  Development  of  European 
Polity,  for  I  have  not  been  conscious  of  their  direct 


APPENDIX  405 


bearing  upon  my  theme.  I  have,  on  the  other  hand, 
gone  to  them  frequently  for  stimulus;  and  I  am  sure 
that  they  have  helped  me  here  and  there  to  formulate 
my  thought.  I  have  intentionally  ignored  in  this 
list  the  usual  and  well-known  bibliographical  aids, 
although  a  few  aids  not  so  well  known  have  been  in- 
cluded. Some  readers  may  derive  assistance  from  Mr. 
Appleton  P.  C.  Griffin's  Select  List  of  Books  on  the 
Cabinets  of  England  and  America  (Washington:  1903). 
It  has  not  seemed  worth  while  to  include  Congressional 
Documents,  especially  as  these  have  been  carefully 
referred  to  in  the  foot-notes  whenever  they  have  been 
serviceable,  notably  in  Chapters  VII-XI. 

ADAMS,  HENRY:  History  of  the  United  States  [1801-1817]. 

9  vols.    New  York:  1889-1891. 
ADAMS,  JOHN  :  Works  ....  with  a  Life  of  the  Author,  Notes, 

and  Illustrations.     By  his   Grandson,   Charles   Francis 

Adams.     10  vols.     Boston:  1856. 
r  ADAMS,  JOHN  QUINCY  :  Memoirs  ....  comprising  portions  of 

his  Diary  from  1795  to  1848.     Ed.  by  Charles  Francis 

Adams.    12  vols.     Philadelphia:  1874-1877. 

The  Jubilee  of  the  Constitution,  A  Discourse  delivered  at 

the  Request  of  the  New  York  Historical  Society,  in  the 

City  of  New  York,  on  Thursday,  the  30th  of  April,  1839. 

New  York :  1839. 
ALGER,  GEORGE  W. :  "Executive  Aggression. "     In  Atlantic 

Monthly,  November,  1908.    cii,  577-589. 
ALLEN,  GARDNER  W. :  Our  Naval  War  with  France.    Boston : 

1909. 

Our  Navy  and  the  Barbary  Corsairs.    Boston :  1905. 
A[LLEN],  R.  L. :  "Agriculture  of  Louisiana."     In  DeBow's 

Commercial    Review    of    the    South    and    West    (New 

Orleans),  May,  1847.    iii,  412-419. 


406  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

ANDREWS,  CHARLES  M. :  * '  British  Committees,  Commissions, 
and  Councils  of  Trade  and  Plantations,  1622-1675."  In 
Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  (1908),  xxvi. 

ANSON,  SIR  WILLIAM  R.,  ed. :  Autobiography  and  Political 
Correspondence  of  Augustus  Henry,  Third  Duke  of 
Graf  ton,  K.  G.  London :  1898. 

The  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution.    Part  II.    The 
Crown,    2d  ed.     Oxford :  1896. 

APPLETON'S  Cyclopaedia  of  American  Biography.  Ed.  by 
James  Grant  Wilson  and  John  Fiske.  7  vols.  New  York : 
1887-1900. 

ATTORNEY- GENERAL  OP  THE  UNITED  STATES:  ''Contrast  be- 
tween Duties  of  the  ....  and  those  of  the  Law  Officer  of 
'the  British  Crown."  Note  in  38  American  Law  Review, 
November-December,  1904.  Pp.  924-925. 

Aucoc,  L. :  Le  Conseil  d'  Etat  avant  et  depuis  1789.  Paris: 
1876. 

BACON,  FRANCIS:  The  Essays  or  Counsels,  Civil  and  Moral. 
Ed.  by  S.  H.  Reynolds.  Oxford:  1891. 

BAGEHOT,  WALTER:  The  English  Constitution.  Reprinted 
from  the  ' '  Fortnightly  Review. ' '  London :  1867. 

BAKER,  WILLIAM  S. :  Washington  after  the  Revolution,  1784- 
1799.  Philadelphia:  1898. 

BALDWIN,  JAMES  F. :  "Antiquities  of  the  King's  Council." 
In  English  Historical  Review,  January,  1906.  xxi,  1-20. 
"Early  Records  of  the  King's  Council."  In  American 
Historical  Review,  October,  1905.  xi,  1-15.  "The  Begin- 
nings of  the  King's  Council."  In  Transactions  of  the 
Royal  Historical  Society  (1905).  xix,  n.  s.  27-59.  "The 
King's  Council  from  Edward  I  to  Edward  III."  In 
Eng.  Hist.  Review,  January,  1908.  xxiii,  1-14.  "The 
Privy  Council  of  the  Time  of  Richard  II."  In  Amer. 
Hist.  Review,  October,  1906.  xii,  1-14. 

BALDWIN,  SIMEON  E. :  Modern  Political  Institutions.  Boston : 
1898. 


APPENDIX  407 


See   especially   chap,   iv,   "Absolute   Power   an   American  Institu- 
tion/' pp.  80-116. 

BANCROFT,  GEORGE:  History  of  the  Formation  of  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States  of  America.    4th  ed.    2  vols. 

New  York:  1884. 
BEER,  GEORGE  L. :  British  Colonial  Policy,  1754-1765.     New 

York:  1907. 
[BENTHAM,  JEREMY]  :  A  Fragment  on  Government;  being  an 

Examination  of  What  is  Delivered,  on  the  Subject  of 

Government    in    General,    in   the    Introduction    to    Sir 

William  Blackstone's  Commentaries.    London:  1776. 
BISHOP,  JOEL  P. :  New  Commentaries  on  the  Criminal  Law. 

8th  ed.    2  vols.    Chicago :  1892. 
BLACKSTONE,  SIR  WILLIAM:   Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of 

England.    4  vols.    Oxford:  1765-1769. 
BOLINGBROKE,  FIRST  VISCOUNT  :   Works.     15  vols.     London : 

1798.          *> 
BOLLES,  -ALBERT  S. :  Financial  History  of  the  United  States. 

Vol.'i,  1774-1789.    New  York:  1879. 
BROWN,  WILLIAM  G. :  The  Life  of  Oliver  Ellsworth.     New 

York:  1905. 
BROWNE,  DANIEL  J. :  ' '  Progress  and  Public  Encouragement 

of  Agriculture  in  Russia,  Prussia,  and  the  United  States. ' ' 

In  Executive  Documents,  35  Cong.,  1  sess.  (1857-1858), 

iv,  No.  30,  pp.  1-50. 
BRUCE,  PHILIP  A. :  Institutional  History  of  Virginia  in  the 

Seventeenth  Century.    2  vols.    New  York:  1910. 

Illuminating  glimpses  of  the  colonial  Attorneys-General. 
BRYCE,  JAMES:    The   American    Commonwealth.     New    and 

revised  ed.    2  vols.    New  York:  1910. 
BUCHANAN,  JAMES  :  Works Ed.  by  John  Bassett  Moore. 

12  vols.    Philadelphia:  1907-1911. 
BURKE,  EDMUND  :  Works Kevised  ed.    12  vols.    Boston : 

1866. 
BUTTERFIELD,  KENYON  L. :  ' '  Farmers '  Social  Organizations. ' ' 

In  L.  H.  Bailey's  Cyclopedia  of  American  Agriculture^ 

iv  (1909),  289-297. 


408  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 


j 


Calendars  of  State  Papers,  Domestic  Series  [1603-1641].  22 
vols.  London:  1857  ff.  Ibid.  [1690-1695],  4  vols.  Lon- 
don: 1898-1906. 

CARVER,  THOMAS  N. :  l '  Historical  Sketch  of  American  Agri- 
culture. "  In  Bailey's  Cyclopedia  of  Amer.  Agriculture, 
iv,  39-70. 

CHITWOOD,  OLIVER  P.:  " Justice  in  Colonial  Virginia."  In 
Johns  Hopkins  Univ.  Studies  (1905),  xxiii. 

CLARENDON,  EARL  OP  :  The  Life  of  Edward,  Earl  of  Clarendon. 
By  Himself.    2  vols.    Oxford:  1857. 
The  History  of  the  Rebellion  and  Civil  Wars  in  England. 
New  ed.    8  vols.    Oxford:  1826. 

CLARK,  DAVIS  W. :  The  Problem  of  Life;  a  Funeral  Discourse 
on  the  Occasion  of  the  Death  of  Hon.  John  McLean, 
LL.  D Preached  in  Cincinnati,  April  28, 1861.  Cin- 
cinnati :  1861. 

CLARKE,  WILLIAM:  The  Clarke  Papers.  Selections  .  .  .  .  ed. 
C.  H.  Firth.  4  vols.  Camden  Society  and  Royal  Histori- 
cal Society.  London :  1891-1901. 

CLEVELAND,  GROVER  :  Presidential  Problems.  New  York :  1904. 
Useful  especially  for  the  first  essay,  ' '  The  Independence  of  the 
Executive,"  pp.  3-76. 

COLEMAN,  MRS.  ANN  MARY  :  Life  of  John  J.  Crittenden,  with 
Selections  from  his  Correspondence  and  Speeches.  2  vols. 
Philadelphia:  1871. 

COMMERCE  AND  LABOR  :  Organization  and  Law  of  the  De- 
partment. "Washington:  1904.  (Document  No.  13.) 

CONNECTICUT  :  Public  Acts  for  1897.    Hartford :  1898. 

CONWAY,  MONCURE  D. :  Omitted  Chapters  of  History  disclosed 
in  the  Life  and  Papers  of  Edmund  Randolph.  New  York : 
1888. 

COOLEY,  THOMAS  M. :  Michigan.     Boston :  1905.     American 
Commonwealth  Series. 
Useful  for  comments  on  the  career  of  Judge  A.  B.  Woodward. 

[COOPER,  JAMES  F.]  :  Notions  of  the  Americans:  Picked  up  by 
a  Travelling  Bachelor.  2  vols.  London :  1828. 


APPENDIX  409 


For  an  estimate  of  this  work,  see  James  Fenimore  Cooper.  By 
Thomas  K.  Lounsbury.  Boston:  1883,  pp.  100  ff.  Amer.  Men  of 
Letters. 

Cox,  HOMERSHAM:  The  British  Commonwealth:  or  a  Com- 
mentary on  the  Institutions  and  Principles  of  British 
Government.  London:  1854. 

The  Institutions  of  the  English  Government;  being  an 
Account  of  the  Constitution,  Powers,  and  Procedure,  of 
its  Legislative,  Judicial,  and  Administrative  Departments. 
London :  1863. 

GUSHING,  CALEB  :  Memorial  of Newburyport :  1879. 

"Office  and  Duties  of  Attorney-General."  In  5  Ameri- 
can Law  Register  (Philadelphia),  December,  1856,  pp. 
65-94. 

CUSTIS,  GEORGE  W.  P. :  Recollections  and  Private  Memoirs  of 
Washington  by  his  adopted  Son;  with  a  Memoir  by  his 
Daughter  ....  and  Notes  by  B.  J.  Lossing.  New  York : 
1860. 

[DE  LOLME,  JEAN  L.]  :  Constitution  de  I'Angleterre.  Amster- 
dam: 1771. 

For  sketch  of  the  author,  see  Dictionary  of  National  Biography, 
xiv,  325-327. 

The  Constitution  of  England;  or,  an  Account  of  the  Eng- 
lish Government.  New  ed.  with  Life  and  Notes  by  John 
MacGregor,  M.  P.  Bohn  's  Library.  I^pndon :  1853. 

DICEY,  ALBERT  V. :  Introduction  to  the  ^fudy  of  the  Law  of  the 
Constitution.    5th  ed.    London:  1897. 
Lectures  on  the  Relation  between  Law  and  Public  Opinion 
in  England  during  the  Nineteenth  Century.     London: 
1905.    The  Privy  Council.    London :  1887. 

Dictionary  of  National  Biography.  Eds.  Leslie  Stephen 
and  Sidney  Lee.^£&  vols.  London :  1885-1904. 

Dictionary  of  Political  Economy.  Ed.  by  R.  H.  Inglis  Pal- 
grave.  3  vols.  London:  1894-1899. 

i,  156-lA  for  a  brief  account  of  the  English  Board  of  Agricul- 
ture, 17»1817. 


i 


\ 


410  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Documentary  History  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  of  America.  1786-1870.  5  vols.  Washington: 
1894-1905. 

DRAKE,  FRANCIS  S. :  Memorials  of  the  Society  of  the  Cincinnati 
of  Massachusetts.  Boston :  1873. 

DUPRIEZ,  L. :  Les  Ministres  dans  les  principaux  Pays  d' Europe 
et  d'Amerique.  Seed.  2  vols.  Paris :  1892-1893. 

EASBY-SMITH,  JAMES  S. :  The  Department  of  Justice:  its  His- 
tory and  Functions.  Washington :  1904. 

ELLIOT,  JONATHAN,  ed. :  The  Debates  in  the  Several  State  Con- 
ventions,  on  the  Adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution  .... 
Together  with  the  Journal  of  the  Federal  Convention.  2d 
ed.  4  vols.  Washington :  1836. 

A  supplementary  volume  (v),  Washington:  1845,  contains  the 
Debates  in  the  Philadelphia  Convention  together  with  Madison's 
"Diary." 

EVELYN,  JOHN  :  Memoirs comprising  his  Diary,  from  1641 

to  1705-06.  Ed.  by  W.  Bray.  New  ed.  5  vols.  London : 
1827. 

EVERETT,  EDWARD,  and  JOHN  MCLEAN  : ' '  Letters  between  .... 
relating  to  the  Use  of  Patronage  in  Elections."  In  Pro- 
ceedings of  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society.  3d  ser. 
i,  359-393.  February  Meeting,  1908. 

FAIRLIE,  JOHN  A. :  The  National  Administration  of  the  United 
States  of  America.  New  York:  1905. 

FARRAND,   MAX:    "Compromises   of   the    Constitution."     In 
Amer.  Hist.  Review,  April,  1904.    ix,  479-489. 
(Ed.)  The  Records  of  the  Federal  Convention  of  1787. 
3  vols.    New  Haven :  1911. 

FINLEY,  JOHN  H.,  and  JOHN  F.  SANDERSON:  The  American 
Executive  and  Executive  Methods.  New  York:  1908. 
Amer.  State  Series. 

FIRTH,  CHARLES  H. :  "Clarendon's  'History  of  the  Rebel- 
lion.' !  In  Eng.  Hist.  Reviewf  January,  1904.  xix, 
26-54. 

The  House  of  Lords  during  the  Civil  War.  New  York : 
1910. 


APPENDIX  411 

FISH,  CARL  E. :  The  Civil  Service  and  the  Patronage.  New 
York :  1905.  Harv.  Hist.  Studies,  ix. 

FORCE,  PETER,  ed. :  American  Archives.    A  Documentary  His-   iS 
tory  of  the  North  American  Colonies.     4th  ser.     March  * 
7,  1774-July  4,  1776.    6  vols.    5th  ser.  July  4,  1776-Sep- 
tember  30,  1783.     3  vols.    Washington :  1837  ff. 

FORD,  PAUL  L.,  ed. :  Essays  on  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  published  during  its  Discussions  by  the  People, 
1787-1788.  Brooklyn :  1892. 

Pamphlets  on  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  pub- 
lished during  its  Discussions  by  the  People,  1787-1788; 
with  Notes  and  a  Bibliography.    Brooklyn :  1888. 
The  Federalist.     A  Commentary  on  the  Constitution 
the  United  States  by  Alexander  Hamilton,  James  Madi- 
son, and  John  Jay.    New  York :  1898. 
* '  Pinckney  's  Draft  of  a  Constitution. ' '    In  Nation,  June 
13,  1895.    Ix,  458-459. 

FORD,  WORTHINGTON  C. :  George  Washington.  Memorial  ed. 
2  vols.  New  York :  1900. 

"W.  C.  F.  et  al.  Report  to  the  President  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Department  Methods:  Documentary  Historical 
Publications  of  the  United  States  Government.  Dated 
November  24,  1908.  Washington :  1909. 
A  general  survey  in  brief  compass  of  the  official  printed  and  MS. 
materials  of  Colonial  and  United  States  history  in  possession  of 
the  Government. 

The  United  States  and  Spain  in  1790 Brooklyn: 

1890. 

Valuable  for  "opinions  in  writing"  given  to  President  Washing- 
ton. 

FOXCROFT,  [Miss]  H.  C. :  The  Life  and  Letters  of  Sir  George 

Savile.    2  vols.    London:  1898. 
FRY,  WILLIAM  H. :  ' '  New  Hampshire  as  a  Royal  Province. ' ' 

New  York :  1908.     Columbia  Univ.  Studies,    xxix. 
GARDINER,  SAMUEL  R.,  ed. :  Constitutional  Documents  of  the 

Puritan  Revolution,  1628-1660.    Oxford :  1889. 


412  THE  PRESIDENTS  CABINET 

History  of  the  Great  Civil  War,  1642-1649.    3  vols.    Lon- 
don: 1886  ff. 

GARNETT,  JAMES  M. :  Biographical  Sketch  of  Hon.  James 
Mercer  Garnett  ....  with  Mercer-Garnett  and  Mercer 
Genealogies.  Richmond:  1910. 

GIBBS,  GEORGE,  ed. :  Memoirs  of  the  Administrations  of  Wash- 
ington and  John  Adams;  ed.  from  the  Papers  of  Oliver 
Wolcott,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  2  vols.  New  York : 
1846. 

GOODNOW,  FRANK  J. :  The  Principles  of  the  Administrative 
Law  of  the  United  States.  New  York :  1905. 

GREATHOUSE,  CHARLES  H.,  comp. :  A  Historical  Sketch  of  the 
U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture;  its  Objects  and  Present 
Organization.  Revised  ed.  Issued  as  Bulletin  3,  Division 
of  Publications.  Washington :  1907. 

GREENE,  EVARTS  B. :  Provincial  America:  1690-1740.     New 
York:  1905.    The  Amer.  Nation,    vi. 
The  Provincial  Governor  in  the  English  Colonies  of  North 
America.    New  York:  1898.    Harv.  Hist.  Studies,    vii. 

GREVILLE,  CHARLES  C.  F. :  Memoirs;  a  Journal  of  the  Reigns  of 
King  George  IV,  and  King  William  IV.  Ed.  by  Henry 
Reeve.  3d  ed.  3  vols.  London :  1875. 

GREY,  ANCHITELL,  comp. :  Debates  of  the  House  of  Commons 
from  11667  to  1694.  10  vols.  London :  1763. 

GREY,  EARL:  Parliamentary  Government  considered  with 
Reference  to  a  Reform  of  Parliament.  London :  1858. 

GUGGENHEIMER,  JAY  C. :  "The  Development  of  the  Executive 
Departments,  1775-1789."  In  Essays  in  the  Constitu- 
tional History  of  the  United  States  in  the  Formative 
Period.  Ed.  by  J.  Franklin  Jameson.  Boston:  1889. 
Pp.  116-185. 

HALL,  CAPTAIN  BASIL  :  Travels  in  North  America,  in  the  Years 
1827  and  1828.  2  vols.  Philadelphia :  1829. 

HALLAM,  HENRY:  Constitutional  History  of  England  from  the 
Accession  of  Henry  VII  to  the  Death  of  George  II.  3  vols. 
Paris :  1827. 


APPENDIX  413 

HAMILTON,  ALEXANDER:  Complete  Works.  Ed.  by  Henry 
Cabot  Lodge.  9  vols.  New  York :  1885-1886. 

HAMILTON,  ALLAN  McL. :  The  Intimate  Life  of  Alexander 
Hamilton  ....  based  chiefly  upon  original  Family  Letters 
and  other  Documents,  etc.  New  York :  1910. 

HAMILTON,  JOHN  C. :  History  of  the  Republic  of  the  United 
States,  as  traced  in  the  Writings  of  Alexander  Hamilton 
and  of  his  Contemporaries.  7  vols.  New  York:  1857- 
1864. 

[HAMILTON,  THOMAS]  :  Men  and  Manners  in  America.  By 
the  Author  of  Cyril  Thornton.  2d  Amer.  ed.  2  vols. 
Philadelphia :  1833. 

HARDWICKE  PAPERS  :  Miscellaneous  State  Papers.  From  1501 
to  1726.  2  vols.  London :  1778. 

HATCH,  Louis  C. :  The  Administration  of  the  American  Revo- 
lutionary Army.  New  York :  1904.  Harv.  Hist.  Studies. 
x. 

HATSELL,  JOHN:  Precedents  of  Proceedings  in  the  House  of 
Commons.  2d  ed.  3  vols.  in  two.  London :  1785. 

HEARN,  WILLIAM  E. :  The  Government  of  England:  its  Struc- 
ture and  its  Development.  2d  ed.  London :  1886. 

HENING,  WILLIAM  W.,  ed.;  The  Statutes  at  Large:  being  a 
Collection  of  all  the  Laws  of  Virginia,  from  the  first  Ses- 
sion of  the  Legislature,  in  the  Year  1619.  13  vols.  Rich- 
mond: 1819-1823. 

^  HINSDALE,  MARY  L. : ' '  The  Cabinet  and  Congress :  an  historical 
Inquiry/'  In  Proceedings  of  the  Amer.  Pol.  Science 
Association  (1905),  ii,  127-135.  "The  Cabinet  of  the 
United  States. ' '  In  The  Americana:  a  universal  reference 
Library.  New  York:  [1907-1908].  xv. 

HOAR,  GEORGE  F. :  Autobiography  of  Seventy  Tears.  2  vols. 
New  York:  1903. 

HOLST,  HERMANN  E.  VON:  Constitutional  and  Political  His- 
tory of  the  United  States.  Trans,  by  John  J.  Lalor  et  al. 
8  vols.  Chicago :  1877-1892. 


414  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

HOUGH,  F.  B.,  ed. :  Proceedings  of  a  Convention  of  Delegates 
from  several  of  the  New  England  States,  held  at  Boston, 
August  3-9,  1780.  Albany:  1867. 

HUNT,  GAILLARD:  The  Department  of  State  of  the   United 
States:  its  History  and  Functions.    Washington :  1893. 
"The  History  of  the  Department  of  State."     In  The 
Amer.  Journal  of  International  Law  as  follows : 
October,  1907,  i,  867-890.          April,  1910,  iv,  384-403. 
July,  1908,  ii,  591-606.  July,  1910,  iv,  596-611. 

January,  1909,  iii,  137-162.        January,  1911,  v,  118-143. 
October,  1909,  iii.  909-927.        April,  1911,  v,  414-432. 

INDUSTRIAL    COMMISSION:    Report.      19    vols.     Washington: 
1900-1902. 

IREDELL,  JAMES:  "Answers  to  Mr.  Mason's  Objections  to  the 
New  Constitution  recommended  by  the  late  Convention  at 
Philadelphia.  By  Marcus"  [Dated  January  8,  1788].  Re- 
printed in  Griffith  J.  McRee  's  Life  and  Correspondence  of 
James  Iredell  (2  vols.  New  York:  1857-1858),  ii,  197  ff. 

JAMESON,  J.  FRANKLIN:  "Studies  in  the  History  of  the 
Federal  Convention  of  1787. ' '  In  the  Annual  Report  of 
the  Amer.  Hist.  Association  for  1902.  i,  89-167. 

JANET,  PAUL:  Histoire  de  la  Science  Politique  dans  ses 
Rapports  avec  la  Morale.  3e  ed.  2  vols.  Paris :  1887. 

JAY,  JOHN:  Correspondence  and  Public  Papers.  Ed.  by 
Henry  P.  Johnston.  4  vols.  New  York :  1890-1893. 

JAY,  WILLIAM  :  The  Life  of  John  Jay  ....  with  Selections 
from  his  Correspondence  and  Miscellaneous  Papers.  2 
vols.  New  York :  1833. 

JEFFERSON,  THOMAS:  Memoir,  Correspondence,  and  Miscel- 
lanies from  the  Papers  of  .  .  .  .  Ed.  by  T.  J.  Randolph. 
4  vols.  Charlottesville :  1829.  Writings  ....  being  his 
Autobiography,  Correspondence  ....  and  other  Writings. 
Ed.  by  H.  A.  Washington.  9  vols.  Washington:  1853- 
1854.  Writings.  Ed.  by  Paul  Leicester  Ford.  10  vols. 
New  York :  1892-1899. 


APPENDIX  415 


JENKINS,  JOHN  S. :  Lives  of  the  Governors  of  the  State  of 

New  York.    Auburn:  1851. 

Useful  for  the  sketch  of  John  Jay,  pp.  74-131. 
JENKS,  EDWARD:  Parliamentary  England,  the  Evolution  of 

the  Cabinet  System.     New  York:  1903.     Story  of  the 

Nations. 

The  Constitutional  Experiments  of  the  Commonwealth. 

Cambridge  Hist.  Essays,  No.  III.     Cambridge:  1890. 
JOHNSON,  SAMUEL  :  Dictionary.    London :  1755.    2d  ed.    Lon- 
don:  1755.     3d   ed.     London:  1765.     Revised  4th  ed. 

London:  1773. 
JONES,  JOSEPH:   Letters,   1777-1787.     Ed.   by  W.   C.   Ford. 

Washington:  1889. 
JOYCE,   HERBERT:   The  History  of  the  Post-Office  from  its 

Establishment  down  to  1836.    London :  1893. 

See  especially  Chapter  viii,  110-116,  "  American  Posts,  1692-1707. " 

Kalendar,  The  Royal:  or,  complete  and  correct  Annual 
Register  [1808-1837].  30  vols.  London :  1809  ff. 

KENDALL,  AMOS:  Autobiography.  Ed.  by  his  Son-in-Law, 
William  Stickney.  Boston:  1872. 

KENNEDY,  JOHN  P. :  Memoirs  of  the  Life  of  William  Wirt.  2 
vols.  Philadelphia :  1849. 

For  comments  on  this  work,  see  the  Monthly  Law  Reporter  (Bos- 
ton), December,  1850,  xiii,  373-379. 

KING,  RUFUS:  Life  and  Correspondence.  Ed.  by  Charles  R. 
King.  6  vols.  New  York :  1894-1900. 

LANMAN,  CHARLES  :  Biographical  Annals  of  the  Civil  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  during  its  First  Century. 
Washington:  1876. 

LA  RocHEFOUCAULD-LiANCOURT,  Due  DE  :  Travels  through  the 
United  States  of  North  America  in  the  Years  1795, 1796, 
and  1797.  2  vols.  London :  1799. 

LEARNED,  HENRY  B. :  ' '  Origin  of  the  Title  Superintendent  of 
Finance."  In  Amer.  Hist.  Review,  April,  1905.  x,  565- 
573.  "The  Origin  and  Creation  of  the  President's  Cabi- 
net, 1781-1793."  In  Tale  Review,  August,  1906,  xv,  160- 
194.  "Qualifications  of  Cabinet  Officers."  In  Nation 


416  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

(New  York),  February  20,  1908.  Ixxxvi,  169.  "The 
Cabinet."  In  Hartford  Courant,  March  19,  1908.  "His- 
torical Significance  of  the  Term  'Cabinet'  in  England 
and  the  United  States."  In  Am.  Pol.  Science  Review, 
August,  1909.  iii,  329-346.  "The  Attorney-General  and 
the  Cabinet."  In  Pol.  Science  Quarterly,  September, 

1909.  xxiv,  444-467.     "The  Diary  of  Gideon  Welles." 
In  Nation,  May  12,  1910.     xc,   480.     "The  Attorney- 
General  and  the  Cabinet."     In  Nation,  September  22, 

1910.  xci,  260-261.     "The  Hon.  Charles  Pinckney,  LL. 
D."     In  Nation,  August  24,  1911.     xciii,   164.     "The 
Postmaster-General."     In   Tale  Review,  October,  1911. 
i  (n.s.),  99-118. 

LECKY,  WILLIAM  E.  H. :  A  History  of  England  in  the  Eight- 
eenth Century.    8  vols.    London :  1883-1890. 

LEE,  RICHARD  H. :  "Letter  to  Edmond  Randolph,  esq."     In 
Carey's  American  Museum,  December,  1787.    ii,  553-558. 

LEPTWICH,  GEORGE  J. :  "Robert  J.  Walker."    In  Green  Bag 
(Boston),  March,  1903.    xv,  101-106. 

LISTER,  T.  H. :  Life  and  Administration  of  Edward,  First 
Earl  of  Clarendon.    3  vols.    London :  1837-1838. 

LODGE,  HENRY  C. :  A  Frontier  Town  and  other  Essays.    New 
York:  1906. 

Contains  an  essay  on  "The  Senate  of  the  United  States,"  pp. 
56-85. 
Life  and  Letters  of  George  Cabot.    2d  ed.    Boston:  1878. 

Low,  SIDNEY  :  The  Governance  of  England.    New  York :  1904. 

LOWELL,  A.   LAWRENCE  :  Essays   on   Government.     Boston: 
1889. 

See  Essay  I,  "Cabinet  Eesponsibility  and  the  Constitution,"  pp, 
20-59. 

The  Government  of  England.    2  vols.    New  York:  1908. 
MACAULAY,  THOMAS  B. :  The  History  of  England  from  the 

Accession  of  James  the  Second.    5  vols.    Boston:  1901. 
MCCARTY,  DWIGHT  G. :  The  Territorial  Governors  of  the  Old 

Northwest.      A    Study    in    Territorial    Administration. 


;NDIX  417 

Iowa  City:  1910.     Publications  of  the  State  Historical 
Society  of  Iowa. 

Glimpses  of  Judge  A.  B.  Woodward. 

McCoNACHiE,  LAUROS  G. :  Congressional  Committees:  a  Study 
of  the  Origin  and  Development  of  our  National  and  Local 
Legislative  Methods.  New  York:  1898. 

[MCLAUGHLIN,  ANDREW  C.]  :  ''Sketch  of  Pinckney's  Plan  for 
a  Constitution,  1787."  In  Amer.  Hist.  Review,  July, 
1904.  ix,  735-747. 

MACLAY,  WILLIAM  :  Journal.  Ed.  by  Edgar  S.  Maclay.  New 
York :  1890. 

MCLEAN,  JOHN:  See  D.  W.  Clark,  Edward  Everett,  W.  B. 
Sprague. 

MADISON,  JAMES:  Letters  and  other  Writings.  Ed.  by  W.  C. 
Eives.  4  vols.  Philadelphia:  1865.  Papers  ....  pur- 
chased by  Order  of  Congress;  being  his  Correspondence 
and  Reports  of  Debates  during  the  Congress  of  the  Con- 
federation  Ed.  by  Henry  D.  Gilpin.  3  vols.  Wash- 
ington: 1840.  Writings  ....  comprising  his  Public 

Papers  and  his  Private  Correspondence Ed.  by 

Gaillard  Hunt.  9  vols.  New  York :  1906-1910. 

MAGIE,  DAVID  :  Life  of  Garret  Augustus  Hobart.  New  York : 
1910. 

MASSON,  DAVID:  The  Life  of  John  Milton:  narrated  in  Con- 
nexion with  the  Political,  Ecclesiastical,  and  Literary 
History  of  his  Time.  7  vols.  London:  1877-1896. 

MEIGS,  WILLIAM  M. :  The  Growth  of  the  Constitution  in  the 
Federal  Convention  of  1787,  an  Effort  to  trace  the  Origin 
and  Development  of  each  separate  Clause  from  its  first 
Suggestion  in  that  Body,  etc.  2d  ed.  Philadelphia :  1900. 

MERENESS,  NEWTON  D. :  Maryland  as  a  Proprietary  Province. 
New  York:  1901. 

MILES,  PLINY:  Postal  Reform:  its  urgent  Necessity  and  Prac- 
ticability. New  York :  1855. 

MILLER,  ELMER  I. :  "  The  Legislature  of  the  Province  of  Vir- 
ginia." New  York:  1907.  Columbia  Univ.  Studies. 
xxviii. 


418 


MONTESQUIEU,  C.  DE  S.,  BARON  DE  :  The  Spirit  of  Laws.  Trans. 

by  T.  Nugent.    2  vols.    Cincinnati :  1873. 
MOORE,  CHARLES:  Governor,  Judge,  and  Priest:  Detroit,  1805- 
1815.    A  Paper  read  before  the  Witenagemote  on  Friday 
Evening,  October  the  Second,  1891.    New  York:  [1891]. 
The  "Judge"  was  Judge  A.  B.  Woodward  (c.  1775-1827). 
MORLEY,   JOHN:   Burke.     New  York:   1879.     Eng.  Men   of 
Letters. 

Walpole.    London :  1889.    Twelve  Eng.  Statesmen. 
MORRIS,  GOUVERNEUR:  Diary  and  Letters.     Ed.  by  Anne  C. 
Morris.    2  vols.    New  York :  1888.    ' '  Observations  on  the 
Finances   of  the   United   States,   in   1789."     In  Jared 
Sparks,  Life  of  G.  Morris,  q.  v. 
MOSHER,  ROBERT  B.,  comp. :  Executive  Register  of  the  United 

States,  1789-1902.    Baltimore:  [1903], 
MURAT,  ACHILLE  :  A  Moral  and  Political  Sketch  of  the  United 

States  of  North  America.    London :  1833. 
MURRAY,  JAMES  A.  H.,  and  HENRY  BRADLEY  :  A  New  English 

Dictionary  on  Historical  Principles.    Oxford :  1888  ff. 
NEWSPAPERS:   Where   it  has   seemed   advisable,   newspapers 
have  been  consulted.     But  any  mere  list  of  such  material 
is  likely  to  be  misleading.     I  have  used  the  files  of  the 
following  papers: 

Pennsylvania  Gazette,  Philadelphia:  1779-1781. 
Pennsylvania  Packet,  Philadelphia:  1779-1781. 
Pennsylvania    Packet    and    Daily    Advertiser,    Phila- 
delphia: 1787. 

American  Mercury,  Hartford,  Conn. :  1789-1801. 
National  Intelligencer,  Washington,  D.  C. :  1800  ff. 
N lies' s  Register,  Baltimore,  Md. :  1811  ff. 
National  Journal,  Washington,  D.  C. :  1824. 
American  Athenaeum,  New  York :  1825. 
The  Nation,  New  York :  1865  ff. 
New  York  Times. 
The  Sun,  New  York. 
The  Hartford  Courant. 


APPENDIX  419 


Citations  have  been  made  from  the  following: 

Maryland  Gazette,  1747. 

Connecticut  Courant,  1787. 

New  York  Journal,  1787. 

United  States  Telegraph,  1829. 

Cincinnati  Gazette,  1841. 

Louisville  Courier- Journal,  1881. 

The  Commoner,  Lincoln,  Neb.,  1901. 
NICOLAS,  SIR  HARRIS,  ed.    See  Privy  Council  of  England. 
NORTH,  ROGER:  The  Lives  of  the  Right  Hon.  Francis  North, 
Baron  Guilford  ....  Hon.  Sir  Dudley  North  ....  and 
Rev.  Dr.  John  North.    3  vols.    London :  1826. 
0  'NEALL,  JOHN  B. :  Biographical  Sketches  of  the  Bench  and 
Bar  of  South  Carolina.    2  vols.    Charleston,  S.  C. :  1859. 
Useful  for  a  sketch  of  Charles  Pinckney. 

OSGOOD,  HERBERT  L. :  The  American  Colonies  in  the  Seven- 
teenth Century.  3  vols.  1904-1907. 

Parliamentary  History  of  England.  Vols.  v-vi  [1688-1714]  ; 
xxx  (1792-1794);  clvi  (26  April-10  May,  1906),  4th 
Series.  London. 

PAULLIN,  CHARLES  0.:  "  Early  Naval  Administration  under 
the  Constitution."    In  Proceedings  of  the  United  States 
Naval  Institute,  September,  1906.    xxxii,  1001-1030. 
The  Navy  of  the  American  Revolution:  its  Administra- 
tion, its  Policy,  and  its  Achievements.    Cleveland:  1906. 

PEPYS,  SAMUEL:  Diary.  Ed.  by  H.  B.  Wheatley.  8  vols. 
London:  1893. 

PERCY,  LORD  EUSTACE  :  The  Privy  Council  under  the  Tudor s. 
Stanhope  Prize  Essay,  1907.  Oxford :  1907. 

PICKERING,  OCTAVIUS,  and  CHARLES  W.  UPHAM:  Life  of 
Timothy  Pickering.  4  vols.  Boston :  1867-1873. 

.PIERCE,  MAJOR  WILLIAM  : ' '  Notes  ....  on  the  Federal  Conven- 
tion of  1787."  In  Amer.  Hist.  Review,  January,  1898. 
iii,  310-334. 

PIKE,  LUKE  0. :  The  Public  Records  and  the  Constitution.  A 
Lecture  delivered  at  All  Souls  College,  Oxford,  at  the 


420  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Bequest  of   the   Regius    Professors    of    Civil   Law   and 

Modern  History With  Plan  of  Evolution  of  the 

chief  Courts  and  Departments  of  the  Government.  Lon- 
don: 1907. 

PINCKNEY,  CHARLES:  Observations  on  the  Plan  of  Govern- 
ment submitted  to  the  Federal  Convention,  in  Philadel- 
phia, on  the  28th  of  May,  1787.  By  the  Hon.  Charles 
Pinckney,  Esq.,  L.  L.  D.,  Delegate  from  the  State  of 

South  Carolina New  York:  Printed  by  Francis 

Childs.     (No  date.)     Pp.  27. 

For  comment  on  this  pamphlet,  see  Nation,  August  24,  1911,  xciii, 
164.  It  has  been  recently  reprinted  in  Farrand,  Records  of  the 
Federal  Convention  (1911),  III,  Appendix  A,  cxxix,  106-123. 

POLK,  JAMES  K. :  The  Diary  of  .  .  .  .  during  his  Presidency, 
1845  to  1849.  Now  first  printed  from  the  original  Manu- 
script in  the  Collections  of  the  Chicago  Historical  So- 
ciety. Ed.  by  Milo  Milton  Quaife.  4  vols.  Chicago: 
1910. 

POORE,  BEN:  P.,  ed. :  The  Federal  and  State  Constitutions, 
Colonial  Charters,  and  other  Organic  Laws.  Parts  I  and 
II.  2  vols.  2d  ed.  Washington :  1878. 

"Post  Office  Department."   In  Collections  of  the  Mass.  Hist. 
Society,  vii,  3d  ser.    Boston :  1838.    Pp.  48-89. 
A  useful  variety  of  materials  from  the  sources,  1639-1775. 

PRIVY  COUNCIL  OP  ENGLAND:  Proceedings  and  Ordinances 
[1386-1542].     Ed.  by  Harris  Nicolas.     Record  Commis- 
sion.   7  vols.     [London :]  1834-1837. 
Acts  of  the  Privy  Council.    Ed.  by  J.  H.  Dasent.    Vols. 
i-xxxii  [1542-1604].    Rolls  Series.    London:  1890-1907. 

PROTHERO,  GEORGE  W.,  ed. :  Select  Statutes  and  other  Consti- 
tutional Documents  illustrative  of  the  Reigns  of  Eliza- 
beth and  James  I  [1559-1625] .  Oxford :  1894. 

QUINCY,  JOSIAH:  Speeches  delivered  in  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  ....  1805-1813.  Ed.  by  his  Son,  Edmund 
Quincy.  Boston:  1874. 

RANDALL,  HENRY  S. :  The  Life  of  Thomas  Jefferson.  3  vols. 
New  York:  1858. 


APPENDIX  421 


REDLICH,  JOSEF  :  The  Procedure  of  the  House  of  Commons;  a 
Study  of  its  History  and  present  Form.  Trans,  by  A.  E. 
Stein  thai.  Introd.  and  Supplementary  Chapter  by  Sir 
Courtenay  Ilbert.  3  vols.  London :  1908. 

REED,  WILLIAM  B. :  Life  and  Correspondence  of  Joseph  Reed. 
2  vols.  Philadelphia :  1847. 

RERESBY,  SIR  JOHN  :  Memoirs Written  by  Himself.  Ed. 

by  James  J.  Cartwright.  London:  1875. 

RHEES,  WILLIAM  J.,  ed.  and  comp. :  The  Smithsonian  Institu- 
tion: Documents  relative  to  its  Origin  and  History  [1835- 
1899].  2  vols.  Washington:  1901. 

RHODES,  JAMES  F. :  History  of  the  United  States  from  the 
Compromise  of  1850  [1850-1877].  7  vols.  New  York: 
1892-1906. 

RICHARDSON,  JAMES  D.,  et  al.,  eds. :  A  Compilation  of  the  Mes- 
sages and  Papers  of  the  Presidents  [1789-1905].  13  vols. 
Washington :  1896-1906. 

RIVES,  WILLIAM  C. :  History  of  the  Life  and  Times  of  James 
Madison.  3  vols.  Boston :  1859-1868. 

ROBINSON,  WILLIAM  C. :  The  Law  of  Patents  for  Useful  Inven- 
tions. 3  vols.  Boston :  1890. 

ROWLAND,  KATE  M. :  The  Life  of  George  Mason,  1725-1792. 
Including  his  Opinions,  Public  Papers,  and  Correspond- 
ence. 2  vols.  New  York :  1892. 

RUSH,  RICHARD:  Memoranda  of  a  Residence  at  the  Court  of 
London.  2d  ed.  Philadelphia:  1833. 

RUSHWORTH,  JOHN  :  Historical  Collections,  1618-1648.  8  vols. 
London :  1721. 

SALMON,  LUCY  M. :  ' '  History  of  the  Appointing  Power  of  the 
President."  In  Papers  of  the  Amer.  Hist.  Association. 
New  York:  1886.  i,  No.  5,  pp.  291-419. 

SARGENT,  NATHAN:  Public  Men  and  Events  from  the  Com- 
mencement of  Mr.  Monroe's  Administration  in  1817,  to 
the  Close  of  Mr.  Fillmore's  Administration,  in  1853.  2 
vols.  Philadelphia :  1875. 


422  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

SCHOULER,  JAMES:  History  of  the  United  States  of  America 

under  the  Constitution.     [1783-1865.]     Rev.  ed.    6  vols. 

New  York:  1894-1899. 
SIDGWICK,   HENRY:   The  Development  of  European   Polity. 

London:  1903. 
SINCLAIR,  JOHN  :  The  Correspondence  of  the  Right  Honourable 

Sir  John  Sinclair,  Bart.    2  vols.    London :  1831. 

See  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  lii,  301-305,  for  article  on 

Sinclair. 

SMITH,  W.  ROY  :  South  Carolina  as  a  Royal  Province,  1719- 
1776.  New  York:  1903. 

SOUTHARD,  SAMUEL  L. :  A  Discourse  on  the  professional  Char- 
acter and  Virtues  of  the  late  William  Wirt.  Delivered  in 
the  Hall  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  March  18,  1834. 
Washington :  1834. 

SPARKS,  JARED  :  The  Life  of  Gouverneur  Morris.  3  vols.  Bos- 
ton :  1832. 

SPEED,  JOHN:  History  of  Great  Britain,  etc.    London:  1611. 

SPRAGUE,  WILLIAM  B. :  A  Discourse  delivered  Sunday  Morn- 
ing, April  7,  1861^  in  the  Second  Presbyterian  Church, 
Albany,  in  Commemoration  of  the  late  Hon.  John  McLean, 
LL.  D.  Albany :  1861. 

STANWOOD,  EDWARD:  A  History  of  the  Presidency.  Boston: 
1898. 

Statutes  at  Large,  The.  London :  1763.  iv,  434-445  for  the 
Act  of  1710  regarding  the  Post-Office. 

STEINER,  BERNARD  C. :  Life  and  Correspondence  of  James 
McHenry.  Cleveland :  1907. 

STEPHEN,  LESLIE:  The  English  Utilitarians.  3  vols.  New 
York:  1900. 

STUART,  JAMES  :  Three  Years  in  North  America.  2d  ed.  2 
vols.  Edinburgh :  1833. 

STUBBS,  WILLIAM  :  The  Constitutional  History  of  England  in 
its  Origin  and  Development.  3  vols.  Oxford :  1896-1903. 

SULLIVAN,  WILLIAM  :  The  Political  Class  Book.  New  ed.  Bos- 
ton: 1831. 


APPENDIX  423 


SUMNER,  WILLIAM  G. :  The  Financier  and  the  Finances  of  the 
American  Revolution.  2  vols.  New  York :  1891. 

SWANK,  JAMES  M. :  The  Department  of  Agriculture :  its  His- 
tory and  Objects.  Washington:  1872. 

SWIFT,  JONATHAN  :  Prose  Works.    Ed.  by  Temple  Scott.     12 
vols.    London :  1897  ff. 
See  especially  vols.  ii,  v,  and  x. 

TANNER,  EDWIN  P.:   "The  Province  of  New  Jersey,   1664- 

1738."    New  York:  1908.  Columbia  Univ.  Studies,    xxx. 
TAUSSIG,  FRANK  W. :  The  Tariff  History  of  the  United  States. 

5th  ed.    New  York :  1898. 
THAYER,  JAMES  B.,  ed:  Cases  on  Constitutional  Law.    With 

Notes.    2  vols.     Cambridge :  1895. 

John  Marshall.     Boston:  1901.     Riverside  Biographical 

Ser.,  No.  9. 

Legal  Essays.    Boston:  1908. 
TILDEN,  SAMUEL  J. :  Writings  and  Speeches.     Ed.  by  John 

Bigelow.    2  vols.    New  York :  1885. 
TODD,  ALPHEUS:  On  Parliamentary  Government  in  England: 

its   Origin,  Development,    and   Practical    Operation.     2 

vols.    London :  1867-1869. 

Edited  and  much  abbreviated  by  Sir  Spencer  Walpole.     2  vols. 

London:    1892. 

TOWNSEND,  WILLIAM  K.:  "Patents:  1701-1901."  In  Two 
Centuries'  Growth  of  American  Law,  1701-1901.  By 
Members  of  the  Faculty  of  the  Yale  Law  School.  New 
York:  1901.  Pp.  392  ff. 

TRENCHARD,  THOMAS  [i.e.  JOHN]  :  A  Short  History  of  Standing 
Armies  in  England.  London :  1698. 

Important  for  remarks  on  the  Privy  Council  in  relation  to  the 
Cabinet.  For  the  proper  name  of  the  author — John  and  not 
Thomas — see  Dictionary  of  National  Biography  sub  "John 
Trenchard. ' ' 

TROLLOPE,  MRS.  [FRANCES  M.]  :  Domestic  Manners  of  the 
Americans.  2  vols.  in  one.  London:  1832. 

TRUMBULL,  JOHN  :  Autobiography,  Reminiscences,  and 
Letters,  from  1756  to  1841.  New  York:  1841. 


424  THE  PRESIDENTS  CABINET 

TUCKER,  GEORGE:  Life  of  Thomas  Jefferson.  2  vols.  Phila- 
delphia :  1837. 

TUCKER,  GILBERT  M. :  American  Agricultural  Periodicals:  an 
Historical  Sketch.  Privately  printed.  Albany:  1909. 

TURNER,  FREDERICK  J. :  "Social  Forces  in  American  His- 
tory." In  Amer.  Hist.  Review,  January,  1911.  xvi,  217- 
233. 

UNITED  STATES: 

CONGRESS — PROCEEDINGS  : 

Journals  of  Congress   [1774-1788].     13  vols.     Philadel- 
phia: 1800-1801. 

The  Secret  Journals  of  the  Acts  and  Proceedings  of 
Congress.  4  vols.  Boston :  1821-1823. 
Journals  of  the  Continental  Congress,  1774-1789.  Ed. 
from  the  Original  Records  by  Worthington  C.  Ford  (15 
vols.  [1774-1779].  Washington:  1904-1909)  and  Gail- 
lard  Hunt  (vols.  16-18  [1780]  thus  far  issued.  Washing- 
ton: 1910). 

Annals  of  Congress:  Debates  and  Proceedings  in  Con- 
gress.   42  vols.    Washington:  1834-1856. 
Register   of  Debates   in   Congress,   1824-1837.    29   vols. 
Washington :  1825-1837. 

Congressional  Globe,  1834-1873.    108  vols.    Washington: 
1834-1873. 
Congressional  Record,  1873  ff.    Washington :  1873  ff. 

CONGRESS — MISCELLANY  : 

American   State   Papers.     Documents,   Legislative    and 
Executive.    38  vols.    Washington :  1832-1861. 
The  Revolutionary  Diplomatic  Correspondence.     Ed.  by 
Francis  Wharton.    6  vols.    Washington :  1889. 
Executive  Journals  of  the  Senate:  1789-1891.     27  vols. 
Washington :  1829-1901. 

Vols.   28-32  are  now   (October,  1911)    printed,  covering  the  years 
1891-1901,  but  they  have  not  been  distributed. 
Senate  Manual.    Ed.  of  February  8,  1905.    Washington : 
1905. 


APPENDIX  425 


LAWS,  ETC.: 

The  Public  Statutes  at  Large  (1789-1911).    36  vols. 

Revised  Statutes.     (1st  ed.)     Washington:  1875.    2d  ed. 

Washington:  1878. 

Official   Opinions   of   the   Attorneys-General.     27    vols. 

[1852-1909]. 

The  first  collection  of  these  Opinions  was  made  and  issued  in  1841. 
fciee  Chapter  vii  of  this  volume.  They  were  arranged  for  serial 
publication  and  issued  in  1852  ff. 

United  States  Circuit  Court  of  the  District  of  Columbia, 
Reports  of  Cases,  Civil  and  Criminal,  in  the  (1836-1841). 
Ed.  by  William  Cranch.  5  vols.  Boston :  1853. 
United  States  Supreme  Court  Reports:  1  Cranch,  2d  ed. 
New  York:  1812.  Pp.  165  ff.  [Marbury  vs.  Madison.] 
167  Reports,  pp.  324-344.  [Parsons  vs.  United  States.] 

Discussion  of  legislative  and  judicial  history  of  the  President's 
power  of  removal. 

UNITED  STATES  AGRICULTURAL  SOCIETY  :  A  list  of  the  Publica- 
tions, with  comment,  has  already  been  printed  as  Note  3 
to  Chapter  xi  of  these  Studies,  supra,  pp.  343-345. 

VALOIS,  NOEL  :  Le  Conseil  du  Roi  aux  xive,  xve,  et  xvie  Siecles. 
Paris :  1888. 

VAN  TYNE,  CLAUDE  H.,  and  WALDO  G.  LELAND  :  Guide  to  the 
Archives  of  the  United  States  in  Washington.  2d  ed. 
revised  and  enlarged  by  W.  G.  Leland.  Washington: 
1907. 

VARNUM,  JUDGE  JAMES  M. :  ' '  Oration  delivered  July  4,  1788, 
at  Marietta,  Ohio."  In  Carey's  American  Museum,  May, 
1789,  v,  453-455. 

Contemporary  estimate  by  Judge  (or  General)  Varnum  of  Knox, 
Secretary  at  War. 

"Walker,   Robert  J. "     In  Democratic  Review.     February, 

1845.    xvi,  157-164. 
WASHINGTON,  GEORGE:  Diary  ....  from  1789  to  1791.     Ed. 

by  Benson  J.  Lossing.    Richmond:  1861. 

Writings.     Collected  and  ed.  by  Worthington  C.  Ford. 

14  vols.    New  York :  1889-1893. 


426  THE  PRESIDENT'S  CABINET 

Writings,  with  Life  by  Jared  Sparks.  12  vols.  Boston : 
1837. 

WATSON,  ELKANAH  :  History  of  the  Rise,  Progress,  and  Exist- 
ing Condition  of  the  Western  Canals  in  the  State  of  New 
York  ....  together  with  the  Rise,  Progress,  and  Existing 
State  of  Modern  Agricultural  Societies,  on  the  Berkshire 
System.  Albany :  1820. 

WEBSTER,  DANIEL  :  Letters  ....  from  Documents  owned  prin- 
cipally by  the  New  Hampshire  Historical  Society.     Ed. 
by  Claude  H.  Van  Tyne.    New  York:  1902. 
Works.    6  vols.    Boston :  1851. 

WEBSTER,  NOAH:  Sketches  of  American  Policy.  Hartford: 
1785. 

WEBSTER,  PELATIAH:  Political  Essays  on  the  Nature  and 
Operation  of  Money,  Public  Finance,  and  other  Subjects. 
Philadelphia:  1791. 

WELLES,  GIDEON:  " Diary."  In  Atlantic  Monthly,  February- 
November,  1909.  ciii-civ.  Ibid.,  February,  1910-Janu- 
ary,  1911.  cy-cvii. 

The  work,  presumably  amplified,  is  about  to  appear  as  The  Diary 
of  Gideon  Welles.  Introd.  by  John  T.  Morse,  Jr.  3  vols.  Boston : 
1911. 

WHARTON,  FRANCIS,  ed. :  See  United  States :  Congress — Mis- 
cellany. 

WILSON,  WILLIAM  L.:  "The  American  Post-Office."  In  The 
Ship  of  State,  by  Those  at  the  Helm.  Boston :  1903. 

WILSON,  WOODROW:  Congressional  Government:  a  Study  in 
American  Politics.    13th  ed.    Boston:  1898. 
Chapter  v,  242-293.     ''The  Executive." 

WOODWARD,  AUGUSTUS  B. :  Considerations  on  the  Executive 
Government  of  the  United  States  of  America.  Flatbush,. 
N.  Y. :  1809. 

The  Presidency  of  the  United  States.    New  York :  1825. 
The  material  for  this  latter  pamphlet  was  first  issued  in  install- 
ments   in   the   National   Journal    of   Washington,   D.   C.,   between 
April  24  and  August  31,  1824.    For  further  comment  see  Note  1  to> 
Chapter  x. 


APPENDIX  427 

. — _ 

^  WOOLLEY,  MARY  E.:  ''The  Early  History  of  the  American 
Post-Office."  In  Papers  from  the  Historical  Seminary 
of  Brown  University,  ed.  by  J.  Franklin  Jameson.  No. 
2,  pp.  33.  Providence :  1894. 

WRIGHT,  FRANCES  :  Views  of  Society  and  Manners  in  America 
(1818-1820).  2ded.  London:  1822. 

YONGE,  WALTER:  Diary  ....  from  1604  to  1628.  Camden 
Society.  London:  1848. 


INDEX 


Act  of  Settlement  (1701):  altera- 
tions in,  25. 

Act  of  1710  (Post-Office):  221; 
analysis  of,  quotation  from,  ob- 
jections to,  in  America,  225-226; 
defeated,  227. 

ADAMS,  JOHN  (1797-1801): 
quoted  (1774)  on  executive,  48; 
again,  on  same  subject  (1786), 
66  and  note  1 ;  privy  council  plan, 
72;  views  of,  on  council  of  ap- 
pointment, 73;  written  opinions 
of,  as  Vice-President,  120-121, 
384 ;  as  Vice-President  summoned 
to  cabinet  meeting  (1791),  121, 
123-124,  384;  record  of  first 
cabinet  meeting  under  (1797), 
137;  inauguration  of,  137-138, 
210;  criticised  by  A.  Hamilton, 
140-141;  approves  bill  for  Navy 
Department  (1798),  199,  213; 
reflections  (1785-1786)  of,  on 
need  of  navy,  204-205 ;  ' '  code  of 
rules"  (1775)  of,  204;  re- 
adopted  (1798),  212;  naval  busi- 
ness under,  210-211;  quotations 
from  messages  of,  urging  per- 
manent system  of  naval  defence, 
211-212;  in  accord  with  Wash- 
ington, 211;  deep  interest  of,  in 
naval  administration,  215;  nomi- 
nations by,  of  G.  Cabot  and  B. 
Stoddert,  216-217;  heritage  by, 
of  Secretaries,  217;  appreciation 
by,  of  larger  aspects  of  naval 
affairs,  218;  disinclined  to  con- 
sult Cabinet,  393. 

ADAMS,  JOHN  QUINCY  (1825- 
1829) :  on  authorship  of  act 
establishing  Treasury  Depart- 


ment, 109;  aspects  of  Presidency, 
150,  152;  harks  back  to  Madi- 
son's message  of  1816,  162; 
remarks  (1825)  by,  on  increase 
of  administrative  work,  172-173; 
records  origin  of  practice  of 
Postmaster-General  making 
annual  report  to  President,  235; 
impressions  of  John  McLean, 
238-244;  contemplates  McLean's 
dismissal,  241 ;  list  by,  of  Jack- 
son's  proposed  Cabinet  (1829), 
244;  comments  by,  on  compara- 
tive burdens  of  Secretary  of 
State  (1800  and  1821),  266; 
comment  by,  to  Judge  A.  B. 
Woodward  (1824),  267;  records 
Monroe's  reason  for  not  men- 
tioning project  of  Interior  De- 
partment in  message,  268;  urges 
new  executive  department 
(1825),  269,  287;  interview  with 
D.  Webster  and  observations  by, 
270  ff.;  deplores  lack  of  Home 
Department  (1839),  272;  com- 
ments by,  on  report  of  H.  L. 
Ellsworth,  Commissioner  of  Pat- 
ents, 311-312.  Memoirs  of, 
mentioned,  182,  241,  269,  383. 

Adams,  Samuel :  opposed  (1780)  to 
single  headships,  201. 

Administration:  dependence  of,  on 
practices  as  well  as  laws;  diffi- 
culties of  its  history,  368. 

Administrative  work:  in  the  Eevo- 
lutionary  epoch  (1775-1789),  50, 
54,  55,  56,  200  ff.  Otto's  remarks 
on  (1787),  58;  influence  of  War 
of  1812  on,  160-161,  256  ff.; 
causes  of  increase  by  1830,  172; 


430 


INDEX 


Mexican  War  and,  176,  253,  274, 
286;  J.  Q.  Adams's  reflections 
(3821)  on,  266;  period  (1783 
ff.)  of  groping,  349-350;  War 
with  Spain  (1898)  and,  355. 

Admiralty,  Board  of  (1779ff.): 
200;  helplessness  of,  203. 

Agricultural   Societies : 

Agricultural  Society  of  the  U.  S. 

(]841),  311,  316-317. 

Bath  and  West  of  England,  298. 

Berkshire,    Mass.     (1810),    304, 

307. 

Charleston,  S.  C.  (1785),  303. 

Columbian  (1809-1812),  306-307, 

316. 

Connecticut  (1803),  303-304. 

Fredericksburg,  Va.,  317. 

Hartford,  Conn.,  310. 

Highland,  298. 

Maryland,  323. 

Massachusetts  (1792),  303. 

New  Haven  County,  304. 

Pennsylvania  (1808),  304. 

Philadelphia  (1785),  303. 

Smithfield,  298. 

U.  S.  Agricultural  Society,  318- 

328;  332-333;  last  meeting,  341- 

343;  publications,  343-345. 

Estimate  of  numbers  of   (1852; 

1861),  305;  project  of  G.  W.  P. 

Custis  (1810),  306;  comment  on 

diffusion  of,  308. 

Agricultural  States :  opposed  estab- 
lishment of  Navy  Department, 
213  ff.,  215,  219. 

Agriculture:  G.  Morris's  provision 
(1787)  for,  254;  project  to  pro- 
mote (1825)  by  means  of  Home 
Department,  268;  L.  H.  Bailey's 
Cyclopedia  of  American,  cited, 
291 ;  popular  interest  in,  and  im- 
portance of,  294  ff.;  encourage- 
ment of,  by  Parliament  in  colon- 


ial times,  295;  Washington  on, 
295-296,  299-303,  passim;  Massa- 
chusetts aids,  303,  304;  changes 
in,  after  1815,  305;  progress  of 
administration  of,  in  New  York, 
306,  note23;  creation  of  commit- 
tee on  Agriculture  (1820),  309, 
note  30 ;  references  to  Committee, 
324,  326,  328,  330,  331,  350; 
first  appropriation  for,  by  Con- 
gress (1839),  311;  fashionable, 
320-321,  note  42 ;  development 
(1850-1860),  321;  increase  of 
appropriations  for,  321,  340-341 ; 
government  interest  in,  321-323, 
326;  general  recognition  of  im- 
portance of  (1860),  327;  sketch 
of  progress  (1836  ff.),  331;  fos- 
tering of,  not  an  essential  part 
of  government  (1888),  336. 

Agriculture,  American  National 
Board  of:  Washington's  sugges- 
tions, 296,  299,  301-302 ;  plan  of, 
before  House  (1797),  302;  reflec- 
tions on  plan,  302-303 ;  G.  W.  P. 
Custis 's  suggestion  (1810),  306; 
E.  Watson's  project  (1816) 
before  Congress  (1817),  307; 
influence  of  Washington's  sug- 
gestions traceable,  306,  307,  313, 
339,  342,  374;  Pennsylvania 
Legislature  (1850)  favors,  318; 
House  considers  bill  for  (1858), 
322,  326. 

Agriculture,      British      Board      of 
(1793-1817):   297-298. 
British  Board  of  (1889  ff.)  :  298, 
note  ii;    339,  note  79. 

Agriculture,  Commissioner  of 
(1862-1889):  292,  328,  330,  332- 
333,  334,  338-339,  343,  note  *, 
351,  374,  375.  Annual  Eeport 
(1866)  of,  cited,  341. 

Agriculture,  Department  (1862)  of, 


INDEX 


431 


and  Secretaryship  (1889)  of:  6, 
292;  objects,  292-293,  350,  351, 
361,  374;  popular  interest  in, 
293;  individual  leadership  and 
organized  efforts  for,  294; 
Washington's  suggestions  (1789- 
1796),  296,  299-303;  establish- 
ment of  Secretaryship,  294,  335, 
338-339,  374;  problem  of  decade 
(1850-1860),  315  ff.;  clear  de- 
mand for  Department  about 
1840,  317,  374;  later  arguments 
for  and  against  319,  323  ff.  C. 
B.  Calvert's  efforts  for,  323-334, 
passim;  recommendations  of, 
326;  efforts  to  make  Department 
"  executive, "  334  ff.,  353-354; 
establishment  (1862)  marked 
new  phase  of  administrative  de- 
velopment, 334,  361,  374-375; 
remarks  on,  by  Hon.  J.  E.  Mann 
(1903),  360-361;  reflections  on, 
366,  374-375. 

"Agriculture  of  Louisiana" 
(1847)  by  R.  L.  Allen,  quoted, 
313,  note  37. 

Agriculturists,  National  Convention 
of  (1852),  318. 

Alger,  George  W. :  judgment  on 
Boliiigbroke,  26,  note  31. 

Algiers  (1795-1796):  peace  with, 
208,  209. 

Allen,  Dr.  Gardner  W. :  work  cited, 
64 ;  on  attitude  of  J.  Adams  and 
Jefferson  (3785  ff.)  toward  naval 
establishment,  205,  note13; 
quoted  on  first  frigates  launched 
(1797),  208,  note  i»;  sketch  of 
Joshua  Humphreys  referred  to, 
211,  note  24;  on  hostilities  with 
Trance  (1798  ff.)  217. 

Allen,  Senator  William,  of  Ohio, 
quoted,  280,  note  54. 

American  Archives:  importance  of, 


for  understanding  of  W.  God- 
dard's  work  (1774),  227,  note  ". 

American  Athenaeum  (N.  Y.),  268. 

American  Federation  of  Labor: 
see  Labor,  infra. 

American  Mercury  (Hartford, 
Conn.),  quoted,  137. 

American  Party  (1856),  238. 

Ames,  Fisher:   47,  98. 

' '  Anas  "  of  T.  Jefferson  cited,  102, 
124,  136. 

Andros,  Sir  Edmund:  interested 
in  colonial  postal  service,  222. 

Anne,  Queen  (1702-1714):  15,  24; 
Hallam  on  reign  of,  37 ;  colonial 
practice  at  close  of  reign  in  the 
matter  of  appointments  of  finan- 
cial officers,  101;  Act  (1710) 
reorganizing  postal  administra- 
tion, 221,  225-226. 

Anson,  Sir  William  R. :  views  on 
origin  of  English  Cabinet,  20; 
his  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Con- 
stitution estimated,  42,  45. 

Anti-Masonic  Party,  238. 

Appleton's  Cyclopaedia  of  Ameri- 
can Biography,  289. 

Appointments:  in  general,  48,  62, 
68-69,  70  ff.,  76,  84,  85,  89,  note 
ss,  97,  101,  102,  104,  107,  144, 
189,  250  ff.;  control  over,  in 
colonial  times,  72-73,  79-80,  101; 
in  Great  Britain,  75;  of  heads 
(1781),  53-54,  note  19,  60,  201- 
202 ;  Washington 's  principles 
(1789),  110  ff.,  131-133,255-256; 
of  Wirt  (1817),  166;  of  G. 
Cabot  and  B.  Stoddert  (1798), 
216-217,  376;  of  J.  McLean 
(1823),  220,  236,  237,  244;  of 
Andrew  Hamilton  (1692),  223; 
of  John  Hamilton  (1707),  224; 
of  A.  Spotswood  (1730),  226;  of 
B.  Franklin  (1753;  1775),  226, 


432 


INDEX 


227;  of  E.  Bache  and  E.  Hazard 
(1776;  1782),  228,  note  is ;  of 
S.  Osgood  (1789),  230;  in  Folk's 
Cabinet  (1845),  275;  of  T. 
Ewing  (1849),  285,  376;  of  N.  J. 
Colman  (1889),  292,  338-339, 
376;  of  H.  L.  Ellsworth  (1836), 
309;  of  I.  Newton  (1862),  334; 
of  G.  B.  Cortelyou  (1903),  346, 
376;  see  Council  of  Appointment. 

Arbitrary  Power:  attempts  to  con- 
trol in  England,  11,  12  ff.,  21-23, 
33-35;  fear  of,  in  America,  49, 
71,  73,  80,  89,  98-99,  104,  121, 
122-123,  133  ff.,  148-149,  193- 
194,  225,  232-233,  250,  265,  272, 
281-283,  333-334,  364-365. 

Argyll,  Duke  of:  Postmaster-Gen- 
eral, 251-252. 

"Arlington  Sheep-Shearing":  see 
Fairs. 

AETHUE,  CHESTEE  A.  (1881- 
1885)  :  194,  336,  337. 

Articles  of  Confederation:  no  pro- 
vision for  executive  in,  48;  sug- 
gest fear  of  executive  power,  49. 

Assistant  Attorney-General 
(1859):  184. 

Attorney-General :  establishment  of 
Office,  5,  47,  105  ff.,  107,  159, 
167,  373;  unknown  to  Con- 
federation (1781-1788),  55,  106, 
159;  in  state  constitutions  (1775 
ff.)  81,  107;  officer  not  to  sit  in 
council  of  state  (N.  C.),  81; 
usually  member  of  governor's 
council,  81;  legal  adviser  to 
President  and  heads  of  depart- 
ments, 105,  159,  166;  head  of 
Department  of  Justice  (1870 
ff.),  105,  160,  181,  187,  373;  low 
rank  and  salary  (1789),  105; 
cabinet  associate  from  outset, 
105-106,  139,  152,  156,  160,  164, 


181,  188,  195;  brief  definition 
of  duties,  106;  known  early  in 
colonial  days,  106-107;  not 
known  in  Connecticut  until  1897, 
107,  note  23;  E.  Eandolph's 
appointment  as  first  (1789), 
114-115,  118-119;  advisory  func- 
tion of,  encroached  upon,  121, 
note 23 ;  not  at  first  recorded 
cabinet  meeting  (1791),  125; 
present  at  many  others,  125-126, 
164-165,  181-182;  unsatisfactory 
organization  of  Office  of,  159- 
160,  161,  162,  164,  167  ff.,  173 
ff.,  176,  178  ff.,  184  ff.;  resi- 
dence requirement  in  Virginia, 
107;  attempt  at  residence  re- 
quirement in  federal  law,  162- 
163,  164;  requirement  exacted  of 
E.  Eush  (1814),  163, 165;  private 
practice  of,  159,  161,  163,  164  ff., 
169,  173  ff.,  178  ff.,  196-198; 
peer  (1853)  of  cabinet  asso- 
ciates, 163,  195;  Monroe 's  letter 
concerning  (1817)  quoted,  164- 
165;  reflections  on  letter,  165- 
166;  Wirt's  appointment  and 
services  as  (1817-1829),  166-172; 
epoch  in  Office  of,  169;  not  legal 
counsellor  to  House,  170;  Official 
Opinions  (1841),  171;  usefulness 
of,  in  Cabinet,  172;  attempt 
(1830)  at  reorganization  of 
Office  of,  173-175,  273;  Folk's 
views  on  (1845),  176-177,  274; 
Gushing 's  views  on  (1854  ff.), 
178-180;  comparison  with  Eng- 
lish office,  179,  181;  pressure  on 
Office  of,  during  Civil  War,  184 
ff.;  reorganization  (1870),  187; 
comments  on  Judiciary  Act,  188- 
191;  place  of,  in  act  (1886)  for 
presidential  succession,  191,  195; 
historic  background  of  act,  191- 


INDEX 


433 


194;  in  relation  to  granting  of 
Patents,  310;  comments  on 
salary,  157,  159,  163,  173,  174, 
175,  note  29,  178,  180.  See 
Appendix  for  Salary,  396;  also 
Solicitor-General,  infra. 

Attorney-Generalship,  English: 
serves  as  model  to  Americans, 
106,  179. 

Autobiography  of  Seventy  Tears, 
by  G.  F.  Hoar :  quoted,  194. 

Bache,  Kichard:  appointment  as 
Postmaster-General  (1776),  228, 
note  is. 

Bacon,  Francis  (1561-1626):  usage 
of  term  ' '  cabinet ' '  in  Essays,  15. 

Bagehot,  Walter:  estimate  of  his 
English  Constitution  (1865- 
1867),  39  ff.,  42,  45;  A.  V. 
Dicey 's  characterization  of  his 
work,  41. 

Baldwin,  Abraham:  chairman  of 
committee  on  departments 
(1789),  109. 

Baldwin,  James  F. :  quoted,  9. 

Baldwin,  Governor  Simeon  E. : 
summary  of  theories  of  execu- 
tive as  set  forth  in  the  Conven- 
tion (1787),  68,  note2. 

Barbary  Powers:  Jefferson  against 
payment  of  tribute  to,  205. 

Barbour,  James:  on  Home  Depart- 
ment project  (1826),  271. 

Barlow,  Joel:  307. 

Barnwell,  Robert  W.:  member  of 
U.  S.  Agricultural  Society,  320. 

Barry,  Captain  John:   211. 

.Barry,  William  T. :  Postmaster- 
General  (1829-1835),  245-246, 
251. 

Barton,  Senator  David:  273. 

Beaconsfield,  Lord:  158,  note60. 

Beaman,  Middleton:  on  interpreta- 


tion of  statutes  (1872-1874), 
232;  on  title  "Home  Depart- 
ment" (1849),  290. 

Beck,  Senator  James  B. :  194. 

Benson,  Egbert:  views  on  con- 
fidence between  President  and 
assistants  (1789),  98;  on  com- 
mittee to  arrange  departments, 
109. 

Bentham,  Jeremy :  disagreement 
with  Blackstone  as  to  English 
Constitution  in  his  Fragment  on 
Government  (1776),  27-28;  ad- 
mirer of  De  Lolme,  28. 

Benton,  Senator  Thomas  H. :  char- 
acterizes Caleb  Gushing  (1856), 
183. 

Berlin,  Treaty  of  (1878),  158,  note 

60. 

Biglow  Papers  (1847):  characteri- 
zation of  Caleb  Gushing  quoted, 
183. 

Bingham,  Senator  William:  sug- 
gests executive  Department  of  the 
Navy  (1798),  212-213. 

Binney,  Horace:  opposes  President 
Jackson,  103. 

Black,  Jeremiah  S. :  Attorney-Gen- 
eral, 198. 

Blackstone,  Sir  William :  influenced 
by  Montesquieu ;  Commentaries 
takes  no  account  of  English  Cabi- 
net; optimism  as  to  English 
system  of  government;  lectures 
(1763)  at  Oxford,  27. 

Blount,  Willie:  288. 

Board  of  Trade:  decision  as  to 
Governor  Cosby  (1736),  133; 
Lt.  Governor  Spotswood  of  Va. 
in  correspondence  (1718)  with, 
225;  reflections  on,  by  Hon. 
J.  E.  Mann  (1903),  362. 

Boards,  System  of  Revolutionary 
(1775  ff.)  :  reflections  on,  50,  55, 


434 


INDEX 


59-60,      100,      200-202,     passim, 
228,  348-350. 

Bolingbroke,  First  Viscount  (1678- 
1751):  cited  on  usage  of  "cabi- 
net," 15;  influence  of  Idea  of  a 
Patriot  King  on  George  III,  26; 
Burke 's  view  (1770)  of  its 
dangerous  philosophy,  35. 
Bolles,  Albert  S. :  on  early  financial 
history  (1775-1789)  of  the  U.  S., 
65. 

Boston:  Meeting  of  Delegates 
(1780),  50  ff.;  postal  arrange- 
ments between,  and  New  York, 
221-222. 

Boston  Public  Library,  345. 
Boudinot,  Elias:  47;  on  committee 
to  arrange  departments    (1789), 
109;   approval  of  R.  Morris  for 
Treasury  headship,  112. 
Brown,  William  Garrott:  on  Oliver 
Ellsworth's   probable  authorship 
of  the  Judiciary  Act  (1789),  106, 
note  21. 

Browne,     D.     J. :      on     European 
methods  of  encouraging  agricul- 
ture, 322. 
Bryan,    William    J. :    remarks    on 

Vice-Presidency,  388,  note42. 
BUCHANAN,  JAMES  (1857- 
1861) :  regard  for  C.  Gushing, 
183;  Secretary  of  State  (1845- 
1849),  275;  member  of  the  U.  S. 
Agricultural  Society,  319;  his 
Secretary  of  the  Interior,  322; 
troubles  with  advisers,  393. 
Burke,  Aedanus:  on  committee  to 
arrange  departments  (1789), 
109. 

Burke,  Edmund  (1729-1797):  de- 
fence of  Whig  system  of  govern- 
ment in  his  Thoughts  on  the 
Cause  of  the  Present  Discon- 


tents (1770),  32;  analysis  of  his 
thought,  33-34;  estimate  of  pam- 
phlet and  its  philosophy,  34-36; 
quotation  from  speech  (1780), 
368. 

Burke,  Edmund  (1809-1882):  com- 
ments on  Patent  Office  (1846), 
312-313. 

Burnside,  Senator  Ambrose  E. : 
342. 

Butler,  Benjamin  F.  (of  Mass.) : 
tribute  to  Caleb  Gushing,  180- 
181 ;  nomination  for  Presidency, 
388,  note  «. 

Butler,  Benjamin  F.  (of  N.  Y.)  : 
quotation  from,  in  V.  S.  vs.  Ken- 
dall (1837),  373,  note  I*. 

Butler,  Pierce  (of  S.  C.)  :  193. 

Butler  Report:  quoted  and  anal- 
yzed, 193-194. 

11  Cabinet":  English  term,  3;  ori- 
gin and  early  political  usage  of, 
15-18;  not  in  English  law-books 
(1692),  16;  a  nickname,  16;  sig- 
nificance of,  under  Queen  Anne, 
17;  not  in  English  statutes,  42; 
guides  to  historic  usage  of,  44-45 ; 
early  usage  by  Charles  Pinckney 
(1787),  9],  92,  note  «s,  93,  note  ™, 
94,  136,  370;  usage  by  James  Ire- 
dell  (1788),  93;  popular  usage 
(1793  ff.),  5,  128,  135  ff.,  143, 
369;  early  reference  to  local 
(N.  Y.)  body  (1792),  136;  refer- 
ence to,  in  H.  of  E.  (1798),  138, 
214-215;  usage  by  Josiah 
Quincy  (1813),  147-149;  Rhea's 
usage  (1813),  149;  John  Mc- 
Lean's conception  (1828),  149- 
150;  usage  in  Marbury  vs.  Madi- 
son (1803),  155;  in  President 
Jackson's  first  annual  message 
(1829),  155;  President  Tyler's 


INDEX 


435 


usage  (1844),  155;  in  the  H.  of 
K.  (1870),  156;  in  federal  law 
(1907),  6,  157-158,  376. 

Cabinet,  English:  beginnings,  2-3, 
11,  14-15,  18-23;  a  parliamentary 
committee,  3  :  distinguished  from 
the  Privy  Council,  16-17;  noted 
in  the  seventeenth  century  under 
James  I  (1622),  18,  44;  offshoot 
of  the  Privy  Council,  18;  possi- 
ble origin  discoverable  in  Tudor 
epoch,  19  ff. ;  Anson's  view,  20- 
21 ;  informal  committee  under 
Anne,  24;  development  under 
Whig  influence,  26;  De  Lolme 
(1771-1784)  on  the  track  of,  28 
ff .,  32,  note  44 ;  Burke  'a  probable 
appreciation  of,  32  ff . ;  status  of, 
at  opening  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, 36;  Macaulay's  apprecia- 
tion of  (1848ff.),  37;  later 
understandings  of  the,  38-42,  45- 
46;  source  of  directive  power  in 
the  English  government,  2,  3,  93, 
136,  139;  contrasted  to  Presi- 
dent's Cabinet,  3-4,  128,  139, 
150,  152,  153,  369;  Josiah 
Quincy's  comparison  (1813), 
148;  Rhea's  reflection  on 
(1813),  149;  no  Attorney-Gen- 
eral in,  181;  Postmaster-  General 
first  (1830)  admitted  into,  251. 

Cabinet,  The  President 's :  not  an 
imitation,  2;  basic  principle  old, 
3 ;  contrasted  with  English  Cabi- 
net, 3-4,  128,  139,  148  ff.,  152, 
369;  responsibility  of,  to  the 
President  alone,  4,  53,  58-59,  61, 
.  66  ff.,  84,  98  ff.,  123,  126,  182, 
242,  363,  370-371,  377  ff.,  391 
ff . ;  compared  to  conseil  du  roi,  4- 
5;  first  summoned  by  Washing- 
ton, 5  ff.,  119,  123,  135,  139,  141, 
156,  370,  377,  382;  increase  in 


size  (1789-1903)  of,  5,  100,  105, 
107,  154,  158,  217  ff.,  244,  249 
ff.,  285,286,292,  346,  370,  375, 
376;  complete  history  impossible, 
6;  earliest  suggestions  of 
(1781),  60-61;  Pelatiah  Web- 
ster's project  (1783),  61-63, 
369;  Gouverneur  Morris's  plan 
(1787),  75  ff.;  Iredell's  sugges- 
tions (1788),  87-88;  G.  Mason's 
prediction  (1787)  and  Governor 
Clinton's,  89-90,  94;  Charles 
Pinckney's  plan  (1787),  91-94; 
unrecognized  by  the  Constitution, 
6,  91, 143-144,  149,  369 ;  ideal  of, 
near  surface  of  debate  (1789), 
99;  the  basic  factors  of,  100  ff, 
107,  118-119;  G.  Morris's  sug- 
gestion (1789),  108;  appoint- 
ments (1789-1790)  to,  111-119; 
accurate  lists  of  membership  (to 
1903),  118,  note  is;  a  customary 
body,  created  by  Washington,  5, 
6,  118  ff.,  135,  369;  H.  C. 
Lodge's  view  of  (1906),  criti- 
cized, 119;  process  of  unifica- 
tion, 120  ff. ;  first  recorded  meet- 
ing (1791)  of,  121,  123-124,  141, 
384;  reflections  on  this  meeting, 
125;  other  meetings  under  Wash- 
ington, 125-128;  first  brought 
clearly  into  view  (1793),  127  ff.; 
not  advised  by  Supreme  Court 
Judges,  128-129;  theory  of,  135, 
143  ff.,  149  ff.,  154-155,  242,  369 
ff.,  378  ff .,  384,  389  ff . ;  first  cabi- 
net meeting  under  J.  Adams 
(1797),  137;  popular  under- 
standing of  (1809),  139;  har- 
mony under  Jefferson,  139,  141; 
meetings  under  Jefferson,  141- 
142;  development  of  (1809), 
143;  arraignment  of  Madison's 
Cabinet  (1813),  147  ff.;  Me- 


436 


INDEX 


Lean's  conception  of  (1828), 
149-150;  travellers'  comments 
on,  150  ff. ;  misconceptions  of, 
153,  154 ;  Postmaster-General  ad- 
mitted to  (1829),  152,  220,  244 
ff.;  schism  (1830),  154;  com- 
position of  (1828),  154;  Hon. 
W.  Lawrence  on  (1870),  156; 
usefulness  of  Attorney-General 
in,  172;  Folk's  circular  letter  to 
proposed  associates  (February, 
1845)  quoted,  176-177;  comments 
on  Pierce 's  council  (1853ff.), 
178ff.;  Gushing 's  views  on,  180 
ff.;  significance  of  act  for  De- 
partment of  Justice  to  (1870), 
187  ff.;  members  of,  as  succes- 
sors to  President  and  Vice-Presi- 
dent  (1856),  193  ff.;  act  for  suc- 
cession (1886),  194-195;  reflec- 
tions on  J.  Adams's  council,  217 
ff.,  238  ff.,  393;  instance  (1822) 
of  Postmaster-General  being 
summoned  to  meeting,  243 ;  re- 
flections on  Jackson's  council, 
244  ff.,  393;  plan  of  Madison's 
Cabinet  for  Home  Department 
(1816),  261;  J.  Q.  Adams's 
Cabinet  discusses  similar  plan 
(1825),  269  ff.;  Folk's  Cabinet 
(personnel),  275;  objections  to 
enlargement  of,  280,  284,  332  ff., 
336  ff.,  363,  366-367;  demand  for 
representative  of  farming  inter- 
ests in,  323  ff.,  328,  332  ff. ;  Sena- 
tor O.  H.  Platt's  view  of  (1888), 
336,  338;  Senator  W.  E.  Chand- 
ler's view  of  (1888),  336-337; 
Senator  P.  B.  Plum's  view  of 
(1888),  337-338;  President 
Eoosevelt's  advocacy  of  ninth 
member  of  0901),  356-357; 
Samuel  Gompers's  theory  of, 
359;  Hon.  J.  E.  Mann's  theory 


of  (1903),  363;  influence  on 
policy,  363;  reflection  on  future 
enlargement  of,  367;  a  device, 
369,  377;  reasons  for  creation  of, 
369,  377,  382;  its  kinship,  2  ff., 
55,  60-61,  78  ff.,  92  ff.,  369;  pro- 
cess of  development  discussed, 
370  ff.;  original  ideal  of  Ameri- 
can secretariat  attained  (1850), 
371,  374;  members  of,  all  heads 
of  "executive"  departments 
(1873  ff.),  373-374;  addition  of 
later  Secretaryships,  375-376; 
present  (1911)  size  of,  377^- 
regular  days  for  meetings  (Tues- 
days and  Fridays),  377;  com- 
ments on  Hamilton 's,  Jefferson 's 
and  A.  B.  Woodward's  views  of, 
378-379;  ideals  of  Presidency 
affecting,  379  ff.,  391  ff.;  written 
opinions,  383-384;  Vice-President 
in  relation  to,  384  ff. ;  reflections 
on  applicability  of  phrase  ' '  con- 
stitutional advisers ' '  to  members 
of,  389  ff . ;  H.  C.  Lodge 's  objec- 
tion to  phrase,  390,  note  47 ;  Pre- 
sident Johnson's  theory  of 
(1867),  390  ff.;  usefulness  vari- 
able, 393-394;  relation  to  Smith- 
sonian Institution  (1846  ff.),  403- 
404. 

Cabot,  George:  declines  Navy  Sec- 
retaryship (1798),  216. 

Cadwalader,  Lambert:  on  commit- 
tee to  arrange  departments 
(1789),  109. 

Calhoun,  John  C. :  influence  over 
McLean's  appointments,  237; 
comparison  with  McLean,  239 ; 
friendship  for  McLean,  240; 
opposed  to  Department  of  Inter- 
ior (1849),  281  ff.,  331. 

Calvert,  Charles  B. :  influential  in 
movement  for  Department  of 


INDEX 


437 


Agriculture  (1852ff.),  323  ff.; 
work  in  H.  of  R.,  328  ff. 

Canada:  project  (1813)  to  invade, 
147. 

Capetians:  founders  of  French  ab- 
solutism, 2. 

Carmarthen,  Marquis  of  (Sir 
Thomas  Osborne)  :  quoted,  18. 

Carroll,  Charles,  of  Carrollton,  307. 

Carver,  Professor  T.  N. :  quoted  on 
national  domain,  291 ;  on  move- 
ment of  population  westward, 
293,  note  4. 

Cass,  Lewis:  247. 

Chandler,  William  E.:  in  Presi- 
dent Arthur's  Cabinet;  objec- 
tions (1888)  to  raising  grade  of 
Agricultural  Department,  336- 
337. 

Charlemagne,  2. 

Charles  I  (1625-1649) :  character- 
istics of  epoch,  12-13;  Long  Par- 
liament's efforts  against,  13-15, 
23;  Committee  of  State  of,  20; 
failure  to  understand  Privy 
Council,  21. 

Charles  II  (1660-1685):  reflections 
on  Cabinet  Committee  in  reign 
of,  18-19;  practice  of  inner  coun- 
cils, 21-22;  attempts  of  govern- 
ment of,  to  consolidate  colonies, 
222. 

Chicago  Convention    (1860),   238. 

Chief -Justice:  provision  for,  in 
Ellsworth's  plan  (1787)  of  ad- 
visory council,  75;  in  G.  Mor- 
ris's plans,  76,  77,  84,  note43; 
appointment  of  Jay,  1 15 ;  written 
opinions  from,  120-121,  note  23; 
C.  Gushing 's  nomination  as,  183- 
184;  suggested  as  successor  to 
President,  192,  193;  mention  of 
Roger  B.  Taney,  237. 

Cincinnati  Gazette:  274,  note  «. 


Civil  War:  increase  of  administra- 
tive problems  due  to,  160,  184, 
231  ff.;  establishment  of  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture  during 
(1862),  292  ff.,  333,  342,  366, 
374,  376;  agricultural  societies 
at  opening  of,  305;  immigrants 
during  decade  of,  315;  Hollo- 
way's  reflections  (1861)  on  eco- 
nomic consequences  of,  329;  con- 
clusion of,  marked  beginnings  of 
organized  effort  for  Department 
of  Commerce  and  Labor,  346- 
347,  350  ff. 

Clanricarde,  Marquis  of:   251. 

Clarendon,  Earl  of  (1608-1674): 
usage  of  ' '  cabinet, "  15 ;  de- 
scription of  Committee  of  State 
(1640),  20;  observation  on  Privy 
Council,  21. 

Clay,  Cassius  M. :  342. 

Clay,  Henry:  opposed  to  Jackson's 
theory  of  relation  between  Sec- 
retary of  Treasury  and  Presi- 
dent, 103;  sentiment  in  Senate 
(1842),  104;  replies  to  Quincy's 
attack  on  Madison's  Cabinet 
(1813),  149;  hostility  toward 
John  McLean,  241;  "new 
world"  idea  (1824),  265;  view 
of  Home  Department  project 
(1825-1826),  270  ff. 

Clemson,  Thomas  G.:  322-323. 

CLEVELAND,  GEOVER  (1885- 
1889;  1893-1897):  197;  estab- 
lishment of  Secretaryship  of 
Agriculture  under  (1889),  292, 
335,  338,  375;  nomination  of 
N.  J.  Colman,  338-339,  376; 
recommends  Commission  of 
Labor  (1886),  353;  view  of 
power  of  removal,  381,  note  29. 

Clifford,  Nathan :  Attorney-Gen- 
eral of  Polk,  177. 


438 


INDEX 


Clinton,  Gov.  George:  prediction 
of  Council  of  State  (1787),  89- 
90,  94. 

Cobb,  Howell:  opposition  to  Inter- 
ior Department  (1849),  280. 

Cochran,  Charles  F.:  364. 

Coke,  Sir  Edward:  on  Parliament, 
134. 

Colman,  Norman  J. :  first  Secretary 
of  Agriculture  (1889),  338-339, 
376. 

Colonization :  English  ideal  of,  295. 

Commerce:  development  of,  172; 
reaching  out  into  Orient  (1783 
ff.),  204;  Jefferson  on  conditions 
of  Mediterranean,  207;  need  of 
organized  protection  for,  209, 
215 ;  Washington 's  reflections 
on,  209-210;  J.  Adams  on,  211, 
212;  steadily  increasing  (1798), 
218;  promotion  through  Home 
Department  (1825),  268;  min- 
ister of,  84,  note^  331 ;  in- 
fluence on  legislation,  331 ;  influ- 
ence on  administration,  347,  348, 
354  ff.,  362,  365-366;  congres- 
sional committees  dealing  with, 
350-351;  efforts  to  obtain  De- 
partment for,  352  ff.,  357-358 ; 
interests  of,  similar  to  those  of 
Labor,  357. 

Commerce  and  Finance:  Secretary 
of,  in  G.  Morris's  plan  of  coun- 
cil, 76. 

Commerce  and  Labor,  Department 
and  Secretaryship  of  (1903) : 
established,  6,  346,  375;  popular 
efforts  behind,  346-347,  351  ff., 
361,  366,  375;  earliest  sugges- 
tions (1783ff.)  of,  347-351; 
more  definite  movement  toward, 
351-354;  bibliographical  mate- 
rials on,  352,  note9;  culmination 
of  movements  for,  355  ff . ;  Roose- 


velt's  suggestion  (1901),  356- 
357 ;  congressional  proceedings, 
357-365;  reflections  on,  365-367; 
objects  of,  361-362. 

Commercial  States:  in  favor  of 
Navy  Department  (1798),  213 
ff.,  219. 

Committees:  Marian  and  Eliza- 
bethan, 20,  note  22 ;  of  Detail 
(1787),  77,  83,  84;  of  Long 
Parliament  (1640ff.),  23,  note 
26;  of  State  (1553;  1640),  15, 
note  is,  20 ;  of  the  Privy  Coun- 
cil, 21-22,  226;  of  the  States 
(1781  ff.),  49;  of  Ways  and 
Means  (1795  ff.),  103-104,  164, 
279,  286-287,  350;  on  organiza- 
tion of  Departments  (1789), 
109;  on  postponed  and  unfin- 
ished parts  (August  31,  1787), 
77,  note28;  on  Eetrenchments 
(1867),  186;  standing  (U.  S. 
Congress),  350-351. 

' '  Communications ' ' :    298. 

Confederation,  Congress  of  the: 
sends  Jefferson  as  plenipoten- 
tiary to  France  (1784),  49;  in- 
efficiency of,  50,  54,  58;  impo- 
tent in  the  eyes  of  the  army,  51 ; 
control  over  administrative  offi- 
cials, 57  ff.;  projects  to 
strengthen,  59  ff . ;  fails  to  make 
McDougall  Secretary  of  Marine, 
54,  201,  203;  power  of  E.  Morris 
and  Jay  over,  56-59;  practical 
failure  of,  66;  appoints  Knox 
Secretary  at  War  (1785),  113; 
forced  to  consider  plan  for 
Marine  Department  (1786),  206. 

Congress:  organization  of  Depart- 
ments and  Attorney-Generalship 
(1789),  5,  47,  97  ff.,  107,  119, 
123,  132,  205,  370;  cabinet  offi- 
cers and  seats  in,  154-155;  Madi- 


INDEX 


439 


son  (1816)  urges  new  executive 
department  on,  161  ff . ;  provision 
(1818-1819)  for  Attorney-Gen- 
eral's Office,  169;  authorizes 
Official  Opinions  (1841)  issued, 
171;  alterations  (3830)  in  Attor- 
ney-Generalship, 173-175,  273; 
disregards  Polk 's  suggestions 
(1845),  176;  favors  bill  for  De- 
partment of  Justice  (1870),  191; 
provides  for  fleet  (1794),  207- 
209;  authorizes  J.  Adams  to 
employ  vessels,  212;  attitude 
toward  postal  arrangements 
(1789  ff.),  230-231;  forced,  after 
1865,  to  reorganize  Post-Office, 
234-235;  raises  salary  (1827)  of 
Postmaster-General,  240 ;  recog- 
nizes need  for  Interior  Depart- 
ment, 253,  275,  276-287,  passim; 
against  separating  Home  Depart- 
ment (1789)  from  Foreign 
Affairs,  255;  Madison's  special 
message  to,  on  burdens  of  secre- 
tariat (1812),  257;  declares  war 
(1812),  257;  no  action  on  Home 
Department  project  (1825-1826), 
271-272;  favors  similar  project 
(1830),  273;  aroused  to  need  of 
Agricultural  Department,  294- 
295,  334,  374;  opposes  increase 
of  administrative  machinery 
(1817),  307-308;  creates  com- 
mittee on  agriculture  (1820),  309, 
note  so,  322,  324 ;  first  appropria- 
tion (1839)  for  agriculture,  311; 
tables  petition  of  Agricultural 
Society  of  the  U.  S.  (1842),  311; 
Taylor's  suggestion  of  agricul- 
tural bureau  to  (1849),  314; 
appropriations  for  agriculture 
(1850  ff.),  321,  326,  340-341; 
memorialized  by  U.  S.  Agricul- 
tural Society  for  a  Department 


of  Agriculture,  324;  freedom 
from  extremists  (1862),  331; 
petitions  before,  for  Secretary- 
ship of  Agriculture,  334-335; 
charters  U.  S.  Agricultural  So- 
ciety (1860),  341-342;  power  to 
regulate  commerce,  350 ;  develop- 
ment of  standing  committees, 
350-351;  influence  of  President 
Eoosevelt  on  (1901),  357;  effort 
to  establish  ninth  Department  in, 
358-365;  indisposed  unduly  to 
enlarge  Cabinet,  363.  See  House 
of  Representatives,  and  Senate, 
infra. 

Considerations  on  the  Executive 
Government  of  the  U.  S.  (1809), 
by  A.  B.  Woodward,  cited  and 
quoted,  142  ff.,  288. 

Constellation  (frigate),  208,  212. 

Constitution  (frigate),  208,  212. 

Constitution  of  the  United  States: 
imposes  responsibility  on  Presi- 
dent, 4,  98,  379ff.;  helped  to 
predetermine  advisory  council,  5, 
86,  379,  390  ff . ;  contemplated 
principal  officers,  5,  92,  97; 
allowed  discretion  to  President, 
6,  86,  140  ff.,  379  ff. ;  "  opinions 
in  writing,"  5,  87-88,  120,  143, 
383  ff. ;  change  of  government 
(1789)  accomplished  by,  59;  op- 
position to  (1787),  73;  final  draft 
of,  85;  no  provision  for  council 
to  President  in,  88,  91,  119,  139, 
144,  149,  151,  153,  369;  C.  Pinck- 
ney  doubtful  about  advisability 
of  having  recognition  of  council 
in,  91 ;  tenure  of  office  of  secre- 
tariat unprovided  by,  97;  ap- 
pointing power  arranged  by, 
101 ;  attempts  to  amend,  in 
order  to  give  Congress  appoint- 
ment of  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 


440 


INDEX 


ury  (1836  ff.),  104,  note  IB  ; 
Hamilton  finds  defects  in,  110; 
copy  of,  sent  by  Washington  to 
Jefferson  (1787),  116-117;  pre- 
sumes President  will  consult 
principal  officers,  140;  no  pro- 
vision for  cabinet  meetings  in, 
141-142;  presumption  of,  that 
every  office-holder  is  a  scoundrel, 
153 ;  early  naval  arrangements 
under,  204,  206-207;  interpreta- 
tion of  Post-Office  statutes 
under,  231  ff. ;  need  of  amend- 
ment to,  for  Home  Department 
(1817),  263  ff.;  foundation  of 
movement  toward,  347;  power  of 
regulating  commerce  in,  350; 
ideals  of  executive  power  in,  379 
ff. ;  Marshall  on  political  dis- 
cretion authorized  by,  380-381; 
anomalous  place  of  Vice-Presi- 
dent  in,  387;  twelfth  amendment 
of,  387;  creates  Senate,  390; 
imposition  of  advisory  obligation 
on  principal  officers,  390-391. 

' '  Constitutional  advisers  " :  A. 
Hamilton's  characterization  of 
cabinet  officers,  5,  140,  379,  389; 
applied  to  U.  S.  Senators,  85, 
note  44,  389 ;  C.  Gushing 's  usage, 
389;  President  Johnson's  usage 
(1867),  390;  Senator  H.  C. 
Lodge's  objections  to  phrase  as 
applied  to  cabinet  officers,  390, 
note 47 ;  reflections  on  usage, 
389-393,  passim. 

"Constitutional  counsellors":  see 
"Constitutional  advisers," 
supra. 

Continental  Congress:  fails  to 
approve  any  form  of  continental 
executive,  48;  failure  to  control 
administration,  50 ;  develops 
committees,  50;  provides  single 


officers  or  heads  of  departments, 
53  ff ,  201 ;  indigenous  system  of, 
55  ff . ;  discusses  naval  adminis- 
tration, 199;  idea  of  executive 
boards  in  the,  200;  provides  for 
Secretary  of  Marine,  201; 
appoints  Postmasters-General 
(1775;  1776),  227,  228,  note  is. 
Journals  quoted,  227. 

Convention,  Philadelphia  (1787): 
decides  on  form  of  national 
executive,  52,  75;  theories  of 
executive  before  the,  66-68;  pro- 
ceedings of,  with  reference  to 
conciliar  plans  analyzed,  68  ff . ; 
(i)  Council  of  Eevision,  69-70; 
(ii)  Council  of  Appointment  with 
comments,  70-73;  (iii)  Council 
of  Advice,  74-78,  83-84;  historic 
background  and  comments  on 
conciliar  views  before  the,  78-83, 
84-94;  other  references  to,  101- 
102,  110,  114,  116,  129,  161, 
347,  369-370. 

Cooley,  Thomas  M. :  Michigan 
cited,  289. 

Cooper,  James  Fenimore:  his  No- 
tions of  the  Americans  quoted, 
154-155. 

Corcoran,  William  W. :  342. 

Cornbury,  Lord:  interest  in  colo- 
nial postal  service,  222. 

Corporations,  Bureau  of  (1903), 
366. 

Cortelyou,  George  B. :  first  Secre- 
tary of  Commerce  and  Labor, 
346,  376. 

Cosby,  Governor  William,  of  New 
York:  133. 

Cotton,  Sir  Eobert,  English  Post- 
master-General: 224. 

Council,  Advisory:  primitive  forms 
and  earliest  aspects  of  an,  in 
Orient  and  Occident,  1-3;  in 


INDEX 


441 


France,  2,  4-5,  9,  55,  56 ;  general 
historic  factors  and  trend  of  de- 
velopment of,  in  England  (Nor- 
man Conquest  to  about  1800), 
3,  9-36,  passim,  42-43,  74-75,  92, 
note  a*,  93,  note  ™,  129;  in 
American  colonial  and  Revolu- 
tionary times,  55,  71-72,  78-82, 
passim,  95-96,  129,  133-134,  369; 
first  clear  suggestions  of  an 
American  national  (1781),  59 
ff.,  82;  P.  Webster's  project 
(1783)  of  an,  with  reflections 
on  it,  61-63,  253-254,  369;  C. 
Pinckney's  plan  (1787)  of  an, 
74  ff.,  90-91,  94,  136,  254-255, 
370;  Madison's,  Gerry's  and  R. 
Sherman's  suggestions  of  an, 
74-75,  98-99;  O.  Ellsworth's  sug- 
gestion of  an,  75;  G.  Morris's 
plans  and  views  (1787-1789)  of 
an,  75-78,  82-84,  note «,  108, 
254;  Iredell's  view  of  an,  87-88, 
93;  R.  H.  Lee's  view  of  an,  88; 
G.  Mason's  view  of  an,  89,  notes 
ss  and  54,  93,  94,  99;  G.  Clin- 
ton's view  of  an,  89-90,  94; 
created  by  President  Washing- 
ton, 5,  118  ff.  See  Cabinet, 
English;  Cabinet,  President's; 
Convention,  Philadelphia;  Privy 
Council. 

Council  of  Appointment:  70  ff.,  84- 
86,  passim. 

Council  of  Revision :  69  ff .,  75,  84, 
86,  90,  note  »«. 

Council  of  State:  61-63,  76-82, 
passim,  88  ff.,  99,  254,  369;  H.  L. 
Osgood's  quotation  on,  in  Mary- 
land, 95 ;  N.  D.  Mereness  and 
C.  P.  Gould  on,  95-96. 

Cowan,  Senator  Edgar:  doubts 
constitutionality  of  Agricultural 
Department  (1862),  33. 


Cox,  Homersham:  works  by,  45-46. 

Crawford,  William  H. :  suggests 
new  department  (1816),  259- 
260;  his  plan  as  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  (1819)  in  aid  of 
agriculture,  308-309. 

Crittenden,  John  J. :  on  presiden- 
tial succession  (1856),  192;  ad- 
dresses U.  S.  Agricultural  Society 
at  Chicago,  320. 

Curia  regis:  9. 

Curtis,  Benjamin  R. :  dissents  from 
opinion  in  Dred  Scott  case 
(1857),  237. 

Gushing,  Caleb:  suggests  reform  in 
Attorney-Generalship,  160,  178- 
180;  on  private  practice  of 
Attorney-General,  164,  178,  196; 
on  residence  obligation,  177;  ap- 
pointment of,  178;  "Opinions" 
of,  and  his  relations  to  President 
Pierce  and  Cabinet,  178,  180;  his 
theory  of  Cabinet,  182;  com- 
pared with  A.  Hamilton,  182, 
391;  estimate  of  183-184;  mem- 
ber of  TJ.  S.  Agricultural  Society, 
320;  application  of  "constitu- 
tional counsellors, ' '  389. 

Custis,  George  W.  P. :  Recollections 
quoted  on  offer  of  Treasury  De- 
partment (1789)  to  R.  Morris, 
131 ;  general  untrustworthiness 
of,  132;  Arlington  Sheep-Shear- 
ing of,  306;  projects  national 
agricultural  society  (1810),  306; 
among  founders  of  Columbian 
Agricultural  Society  (1809),  307. 

Dale,  Captain  Richard:  211. 
Dallas,    George    M.:     intimacy    as 

Vice-President  with  Polk,  385  ff. 
Darusmont,     Mme. :     see     Wright, 

Frances. 
Davis,  Jefferson :  Secretary  of  War, 


442 


INDEX 


178;  favors  Department  of  the 
Interior  (1849)  as  Senator,  281, 
283,  284,  287. 

Dayton,  Jonathan:  youngest  mem- 
ber of  Philadelphia  Convention 
(1787),  91,  note  si. 

De  Bow,  James  D.  B. :  his  Com- 
mercial Review  cited,  313;  mem- 
ber of  U.  S.  Agricultural  Society, 
320. 

Delano,  Columbus:  404. 

De  Lolme,  Jean  L. :  influence  of, 
over  J.  Bentham,  A.  Hamilton 
and  others  through  his  Constitu- 
tion de  I'Angleterre  (1771),  28; 
influence  of  Montesquieu  on,  28- 
29;  analysis  of  work  of,  29-31; 
estimate  of,  31-32,  note  44,  35; 
quoted  by  Hamilton  (1788)  on 
unity  of  executive,  380. 

' '  Department " :  as  applied  to  U.  S. 
Post-Office,  23],  note  21,  232,  373. 

Department  of  the  Productive 
Arts:  329. 

Departments:  contemplated  in  Con- 
stitution, 5,  92,  97,  119;  move- 
ment toward,  in  Eevolution,  52 
ff.,  201  ff . ;  five,  in  G.  Morris 's 
plan  for  council  (1787),  76;  four, 
in  C.  Pinckney's  plan,  91;  de- 
bates in  1789  on,  97-100;  "  ex- 
ecutive" as  applied  to,  100  ff., 
372  ff.;  committee  (1789)  on, 
109;  rank  of,  144;  suggestion 
that  Attorney-General  (1830)  be 
raised  to  head  of  one  of,  173; 
relation  of  President  to  the, 
182;  minor  changes  in  (1812), 
257;  lack  of  proper  differentia- 
tion of  tasks  in,  273  ff . ;  com- 
ments on,  333;  trend  of  efforts 
(1865  ff.)  for,  351  ff.  See  Prin- 
cipal Officers,  infra. 

Dexter,  Samuel:  217. 


Diary  of  James  K.  Polk:  cited, 
177,  182,  285,  383,  385. 

Diary  of  Gideon  Welles :  cited,  182, 
383,  note  so. 

Dicey,  Professor  Albert  V. :  esti- 
mate by,  of  Bagehot  and  W.  E. 
Hearn,  41 ;  peculiarity  of  Eng- 
lish cabinet  history,  42;  general 
obligation  to,  404. 

Dickinson,  Hon.  Jacob  M. :  author- 
ity (1911)  for  practice  of 
written  opinions  under  President 
Taft,  384,  note  33. 

Dickinson,  John:    71. 

Diocletian :   2. 

Dissertation  on  the  Political  Union 
and  Constitution  of  the  Thirteen 
United  States  (1783),  by  Pela- 
tiah  Webster :  cited,  62,  note  35, 
254. 

District  Attorneys:  185,  188. 

Domestic  Affairs.  See  Home  De- 
partment; Interior  Department, 
infra. 

Dongan,   Governor   Thomas:    222. 

Douglas,  Stephen  A. :  member  of 
U.  S.  Agricultural  Society,  320; 
opposed  to  either  Bureau  or  De- 
partment of  Agriculture,  324. 

Downing  Street:  153. 

Dred  Scott  case:   237. 

Duane,  James:  favors  single  heads 
(1780),  50  ff. 

Duane,  William  J. :  removal  of, 
commented  on,  103  ff.,  381-382. 

Eaton,  John  H. :  Secretary  of  War, 

247. 
Edward    VI     (1547-1553):     Privy 

Council  under,  20. 
Elgin,   Earl  of:   252. 
Ellsworth,  Henry  L. :  Commissioner 

of  Patents  (1836-1845),  309,  331 


INDEX 


443 


sketch  of,  31  Off.;  recommends 
agricultural  bureau  (1843),  311; 
comments  of  J.  Q.  Adams 
(1845)  on,  311-312;  accomplish- 
ments of,  312-313;  interest  in 
Smithson  bequest,  311,  316. 

Ellsworth,  Oliver:  favors  Madi- 
son's idea  for  a  council  of  revi- 
sion (1787),  69;  plan  for 
advisory  council,  75;  influence 
of,  on  G.  Morris's  revised  plan 
of  advisory  council,  77;  wishes 
principal  officers  to  give  advice, 
86-87;  chairman  of  committee  in 
Senate  (1789)  to  arrange  judi- 
cial establishment,  105;  probable 
author  of  Judiciary  Act,  106; 
his  son,  Henry  L.,  309. 

Estates-General:  similarity  to  Con- 
gress of  Confederation,  49-50. 

Evarts,  William  M. :  fees  of,  for 
legal  services,  185 ;  cited  on  legal 
aspect  of  presidential  power  of 
removal,  381,  note  29. 

Evelyn,  John  (1620-1706)  :  cited 
on  usage  of  "  cabinet,"  15; 
characterized  Thomas  Neale  in 
his  Diary,  223. 

Everett,  Edward:  J.  McLean's 
idea  of  Cabinet  conveyed  to,  150, 
242 ;  Representative  from  Massa- 
chusetts, 220;  remarks  of,  on 
office  of  Postmaster-General 
(1828),  220;  impressions  of  J. 
McLean,  238,  242,  244,  249;  ad- 
dressed U.  S.  Agricultural  So- 
ciety (1855),  320. 

Ewing,  Thomas :  remarks  on  incon- 
gruity in  title  of  Department  of 
Interior  (1849),  281,  289-290. 

Examiner  of  Claims  (State  De- 
partment) :  190. 

Executive,  American:  unity  of  the, 
3,  50  ff.,  66,  67,  69,  70,  72,  75, 


76,  85,  97,  98,  102ff.,  110,  119, 
120,   122  ff.,  135,  140,   163,   169, 
172,   179,  182,  189-190,  200-201, 
235,  240,  242,  250,  260,  280,  371, 
373-374,    378  ff.,    388,    392;    re- 
sponsibility of  the,  4,  7,  67,  73, 

77,  84,  87,  98  ff.,   154,  182,  379 
ff.,  387,  391,  392;    discretion  of 
the,  48,  75  ff.,  83,  86  ff.,  99,  119, 
126,    136,    139  ff.,    149-150,    156, 
179,    188,   217,   233  ff.,  369,   379 
ff.,  388,  390,  392;    fear  of  the, 
49,    80,    233;     independence    of 
the,  49,  62,  66  ff.,  73,  74,  83,  84, 
126  ff.,  170,  172;  single  form  of, 
approved    by    the    Philadelphia 
Convention   (1787),  52,  75,  380, 
note  25 ;       theories      of,      before 
the   Convention,   66-68;    a   direc- 
tory, 141,  142,  149-150;  stability 
of,  doubted,  142-143;  travellers' 
comments  on  the,  150  ff. 

Fairs:  nature  of,  in  colonial  and 
Revolutionary  times,  304,  306; 
in  Wethersfield,  Conn.  (1784), 
Washington,  D.  C.  (1804  ff.), 
306 ;  ' '  Arlington  Sheep-Shear- 
ing," 306;  of  the  U.  S.  Agri- 
cultural Society  (1853  ff.),  320. 

Farrand,  Max:  comment  on  his 
Records  of  the  Federal  Conven- 
tion (1911),  348,  notes. 

Federalist,  The:  clue  to  possible 
authorship  of  No.  50  of,  162, 
note  7 ;  reveals  interest  of 
authors  in  general  problems  of 
commerce  regulation,  348 ;  quo- 
tation from,  on  unity  of  the 
executive,  380,  note  2*. 

Fessenden,  William  Pitt:  member 
of  U.  S.  Agricultural  Society, 
320. 

FILLMORE,     MILLARD      (1850- 


444 


INDEX 


1853)  :  attends  U.  8.  Agricul- 
tural Society,  319. 

Finance:  minister  of,  in  Ells- 
worth's project  of  an  advisory 
council  (1787),  75;  minister  of, 
in  G.  Morris's  plan  for  French 
government,  84,  note 43 ;  secre- 
tary of  commerce  and,  in  G. 
Morris's  plan  of  advisory  coun- 
cil (1787),  76.  See  Treasury, 
Department  of  the,  and  Secre- 
taryship of  the,  infra. 

Finances,  Colonial  and  Kevolu- 
tionary:  comments  on  methods 
of  administering,  50,  52-53,  55- 
59,  passim,  64-65,  69,  76,  77,  81, 
83,  91,  100  ff.,  107-108,  200-203, 
passim. 

Firth,  Charles  H. :  takes  account 
of  Committee  of  Both  King- 
doms, 14,  notes  9  and  1° ;  editor 
of  the  Clarice  Papers,  44. 

Fisheries,  Bureau  for  (1824):  267. 

Fitzpatrick,  Benjamin :  declines 
Vice-Presidency  (1860),  388, 
note  4i. 

Fitzsimons,  Thomas:  on  committee 
to  arrange  departments  (1789), 
109;  objects  to  principle  (1792) 
of  law  of  presidential  succes- 
sion, 192. 

Force,  Peter:  266. 

Ford,  Paul  Leicester:  comment  on 
C.  Pinckney's  suggestion  (1787) 
of  a  Cabinet  Council,  92,  note  63. 

Foreign  Affairs:  committee  of, 
under  Charles  II,  21;  minister 
(or  Secretary)  of,  53-55,  passim, 
75,  76,  84,  note  43,  91,  100,  108; 
Senate's  share  in,  85;  compli- 
cated conditions  in  administra- 
tion of,  161,  272.  See  State,  De- 
partment and  Secretaryship  of, 
infra. 


"Foreign  Office":   256. 

Forests:  conservation  of  (1824), 
267. 

Foster,  Senator  La  Fayette  S. : 
doubtful  about  Bureau  or  De- 
partment of  Agriculture,  330; 
comments  on  salary  of  head  of 
Department  of  Agriculture 
(1862),  333. 

Fox,  Charles  James:   297. 

Foxcroft,  Miss  H.  C.:  Life  and 
Letters  of  George  Savile,  44-45. 

France:  councils  in,  2,  4-5,  9;  T. 
Jefferson  goes  (1784)  to,  49; 
influence  of,  on  American  sys- 
tem of  administration,  53,  55-56; 
alliance  of  U.  S.  (1778)  with, 
56;  Jefferson  in  (1784-1789),  72, 
107,  116,  204;  G.  Morris's  plan 
of  government  for,  84,  note 43, 
254,  348;  G.  Morris  goes  (1788) 
to,  107;  Jefferson  leaves,  117; 
crisis  in  U.  S.  (1793)  due  to,  127, 
128;  strained  relations  (1796 
ff.)  with,  211,  212;  U.  S.  navy 
and,  215;  actual  war  (1798  ff.) 
with,  217;  Franklin  goes  (1776) 
to,  228;  system  of  agricultural 
administration  in,  323,  328,  362. 

Frankland,  Sir  Thomas :  224. 

Franklin,  Benjamin:  European 
reputation  of,  in  1789,  117; 
deputy  Postmaster-General 
(1753-1774),  and  services  of, 
226;  Wedderburn's  attack  on, 
and  dismissal  of,  226;  appoint- 
ment of,  as  first  national  Post- 
master-General (1775),  227; 
salary  of,  227;  departure  of 
(1776),  for  France,  228. 

French,  Benjamin  B. :  scheme  of 
elective  headship  for  national 
Department  of  Agriculture 


INDEX 


445 


(1855),  325;  president  of  U.  S. 
Agricultural  Society,  342. 

French,  William  M. :   342. 

Frye,  William  P.:  plan  for  De- 
partment of  Commerce  (1891), 
357;  efforts  of,  favoring  such 
an  organization,  357-358. 

Gallatin,  Albert:  Josiah  Quincy's 
reference  (1813)  to,  148;  op- 
posed Navy  Department  bill 
(1798)  in  H.  of  R.,  213. 

Gardiner,  Samuel  Rawson:  cited 
on  the  Grand  Remonstrance,  13, 
note  8 ;  views  of,  on  the  Commit- 
tee of  Both  Kingdoms  (1644 
ff.),  13-15,  notes  s,  10,13. 

GARFIELD,  JAMES  A.  (1881): 
quoted  (1870),  191;  political  sig- 
nificance of  the  shooting  of,  and 
death  of,  191  ff.,  194. 

Garnett,  James  Mercer:  president 
of  the  Agricultural  Society  of 
the  U.  S.  (1841-1843),  317, 
note  40. 

Gay,  John:  44. 

General  Land  Office:  237,  278-279. 

Geneva  Tribunal:   183. 

George  I  (1714-1727)  :  submissive 
to  Whig  leaders,  26;  Hallam  on 
the  reign  of,  37. 

George  II  (1727-1760):  submissive 
to  Whig  leaders,  26;  Hallam  on 
the  reign  of,  37. 

George  III  (1760-1820):  influ- 
enced by  Bolingbroke 's  Idea  of 
a  Patriot  King  (1738),  26;  re- 
actionary efforts  of,  failed,  26; 
ideal  of  restored  absolutism  of, 
attacked  by  Burke,  33-35 ;  Board 
of  Agriculture  (1793-1817)  fa- 
vored by,  297. 

Gerry,  Elbridge:  suggests  council 
(1787)  to  President,  74;  fears 


powers  of  secretariat  (1789), 
98-99;  views  compared  with  G. 
Mason 's,  99 ;  on  committee 
(1789)  to  arrange  departments, 
109;  approves  R.  Morris  as 
financier,  112;  Jefferson's  letter 
to  (1797),  on  vice-presidential 
functions  quoted,  124-125,  385; 
Jefferson 's  comment  to,  on  presi- 
dential and  vice-presidential  of- 
fices, 145,  note  31. 

Giles,  William  B.:  137. 

Glen,  Governor  James:  controversy 
as  to  right  of,  to  enter  Upper 
House  in  S.  C.,  133-134. 

Goddard,  William:  his  efforts 
(1774-1775)  for  an  independent 
national  Post-Office,  with  com- 
ment, 227. 

Gompers,  Samuel:  opposes  bill  for 
Department  of  Commerce  and 
Labor,  359. 

Goodnow,  Professor  Frank  J. :  cited 
for  theory  of  Secretaryship  of 
the  Treasury,  105,  note  «. 

Gorham,  Nathaniel:  on  appoint- 
ment of  national  treasurer,  102. 

Gould,  Clarence  P.:  on  Maryland 
council  of  state  and  privy  coun- 
cil, 95-96. 

Governor,  Judge  and  Priest 
(1891),  by  Charles  Moore:  289. 

Grand  Remonstrance  (1641) 
quoted,  13. 

Granger,  Francis:  Postmaster-Gen- 
eral (1841),  236. 

Granger,  Gideon:  Postmaster-Gen- 
eral (1801-1814),  236. 

GRANT,  ULYSSES  S.  (1869- 
1877) :  seeks  aid  of  Caleb  Gush- 
ing, 183;  approves  bill  for  De- 
partment of  Justice  (1870),  187; 
approves  first  edition  of  the 


446 


INDEX 


Revised  Statutes  (1874),  232; 
trouble  with  Cabinet,  393. 

Greathouse,  Charles  H. :  quotations 
from  his  Historical  Sketch  of  the 
U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture 
(1907),  with  supplementary  data 
from,  340-341. 

Greeley,  Horace:  member  of  U.  S. 
Agricultural  Society,  320. 

Green,  Duff:  influence  of,  over 
Jackson,  246  ff. 

Greene,  Evarts  B. :  on  colonial  prac- 
tice of  appointment,  101. 

Grey,  Charles  (Second  Earl) :  251, 
297. 

Grey,  Plenry  George  (Third  Earl) : 
comment  on  his  Parliamentary 
Government  (1858),  45. 

Guggenheimer,  Jay  C. :  contribution 
to  administrative  history  (1775- 
1789),  64. 

Guthrie,  James:  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  (1853-1857),  attends 
meeting  of  the  U.  S.  Agricul- 
tural Society,  319. 

Hale,  John  P. :  view  of  Agricul- 
tural Department  (1862),  333. 

Hall,  Captain  Basil :  remarks  on 
executive  in  U.  S.,  152. 

Hallam,  Henry:  estimate  of  Con- 
stitutional History  (1827)  in 
respect  to  English  Cabinet,  36- 
37. 

Hamilton,  Alexander:  characterizes 
principal  officers  as  ''constitu- 
tional advisers,"  5,  140,  379, 
389;  student  of  De  Lolme,  28, 
380,  note 24 ;  plan  for  head- 
ships (1780),  52  ff.,  201;  sug- 
gestion of  French  influence  over 
administrative  plan,  56;  views 
of,  on  appointments  of  heads  of 
departments,  68-69;  "opinions 


in  writing"  a  mere  redundancy, 
87;  slurred-  by  Jefferson,  102, 
126;  S.  J.  Tilden's  view  (1834) 
of,  103;  alleged  author  of  act 
for  Treasury  Department 
(1789),  109,  126;  predicts 
Washington  (1787)  as  first  Pre- 
sident, 110,  note1;  appointment 
of,  as  first  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  113-114,  118,  131-132; 
wish  to  present  Eeport  on  Public 
Credit  to  H.  of  R.  in  person, 
122 ;  attempts  to  have  him  appear 
before  H.  of  R.  fail  (1790  and 
1792),  122-123;  at  cabinet  meet- 
ings, 123  ff.,  125-126;  hostility 
of,  toward  Jefferson,  129-130; 
theory  of  Cabinet,  135,  140-141, 
378-379;  "cabinet  efforts"  of, 
136;  Writings  of,  for  conception 
of  Cabinet,  140  ff.,  378-379; 
criticism  of  J.  Adams  (1800), 
140;  views  of,  on  executive  com- 
pared with  those  of  Gushing, 
182,  391;  suggestion  of  Mc- 
Dougall  (1780)  for  Secretary- 
ship of  Marine,  201 ;  Postmaster- 
General  Osgood  (1790)  reports 
to,  234 ;  Jefferson 's  estimate  of 
State  Department  expenses 
(1790-1791)  made  to,  256;  view 
(1787)  of  agricultural  adminis- 
tration, 293;  influence  of,  over 
Washington 's  last  annual  mes- 
sage (1796),  300-301;  interest 
of,  in  general  problem  (1787- 
1788)  of  government  regulation 
of  commerce,  348;  his  Board  for 
promoting  Arts,  Agriculture, 
Manufactures,  and  Commerce 
(1791),  348  ff.;  opposed  to  con- 
stitutional council  for  President 
(1788),  378;  on  unity  of  execu- 
tive, 380,  391.  . 


INDEX 


447 


Hamilton,  Andrew:  Governor  of 
New  Jersey,  in  charge  of  colonial 
Post-Office  ( 1692  ff.),  223;  death 
of,  224. 

Hamilton,  Mrs.  Andrew:  224. 

Hamilton,  John:  224,  225. 

Hamilton,  Thomas:  comments  on 
Cabinet,  152-153. 

Hamilton,  Sir  William:  152-153. 

Hamlet:  paraphrase  of  passage 
(Act  III,  sc.  ii),  183. 

Hanna,  Senator  Marcus  A. :  360. 

Harmon,  Judson:  Attorney-General 
(1895-1897),  198. 

HARRISON,  WILLIAM  H. 
(1841):  236. 

Hartington,  Lord:  252. 

Hartley,  Thomas :  expresses  fear  of 
executive  power  (1791),  233. 

Hatch,  William  H. :  efforts  of,  to 
raise  Department  of  Agriculture 
(1881  ff.)  to  executive  rank,  335, 
note75}  ff. 

Hawkesbury,  Lord  (Charles  Jenkin- 
son)  :  297. 

Hazard,  Ebenezer:   228,  note13. 

Heads  of  Departments.  See  Prin- 
cipal Officers,  infra. 

Hearn,  Professor  William  E. :  esti- 
mate of  Government  of  England 
(1867),  39  ff.,  42,  45;  Professor 
Dicey 's  characterization  of  work 
of,  41. 

Henry  II  (1154-1189):  10. 

Henry  III  (1216-1272):  Bishop 
Stubbs's  judgment  regarding, 
and  claims  of  Common  Council 
as  to  great  officers,  10. 

Henry  VII  (1485-1509):  Privy 
Council  at  accession  of,  11. 

Hinsdale,  Mary  L. :  study  of  rela- 
tion of  Cabinet  to  Congress,  123, 
note  29. 

Hoar,  Ebenezer  R. :   195,  note73. 


Hoar,  Senator  George  Frisbie:  on 
presidential  succession,  191; 
author  of  act  (1886),  194. 

Hobart,  Garret  A.  (Vice-Presi- 
dent) :  relation  of,  to  McKinley's 
Cabinet,  385  ff . ;  intimacy  of, 
with  McKinley,  387,  note  *<>. 

Holloway,  David  P. :  recommends 
Secretaryship  of  Agriculture 
(3861),  328;  reflections  of,  on 
economic  consequences  of  Civil 
War,  329. 

Hoist,  Hermann  E.  von:  183, 
note  49,  184,  note  so. 

Home  Department,  and  Secretary- 
ship of  the:  urged  by  Vining 
(1789),  100,  255;  Madison  sug- 
gested for,  112;  not  favored  by 
Congress,  112;  Judge  A.  B. 
Woodward's  project  of  (1824), 
147,  267;  suggestion  of  (1830), 
174;  idea  of,  familiar  to  decade 
(1780-1790),  253;  favored  by  C. 
Pinckney  (1787),  254-255;  first 
clear  recommendation  (1812)  of 
a,  257-258;  reflections  on  recom- 
mendation, 258-259;  cabinet 
plan  (1816)  for  a,  261;  fate  of 
bill  (1817)  for,  262-263;  reflec- 
tions on  result,  263-265;  plan 
of,  favored  by  leading  statesmen 
(1825),  268;  bill  for  a  (1826), 
271;  report  on  bill,  271,  note  39; 
Jackson's  view  of  (1829),  272; 
newspaper  comment  on  need  of 
a  (1837  ff.),  273,  274,  note «. 
See  Interior,  Department  and 
Secretaryship  of  the,  infra. 

"Home  Office":   256. 

Homestead  Acts:   295. 

House  of  Commons:  rise  to  con- 
trolling position,  23  ff . ;  Whig 
influence  in  the,  26;  De  Lolme's 
view  of  the,  29-31,  32,  note  ** ; 


448 


INDEX 


plan  to  alienate  (1760  ff.)  from 
Ministry,  33 ;  principle  in,  of 
holding  Ministry  responsible, 
34 ;  Burke 's  ideal  for  the,  34-35 ; 
confidence  of  the,  in  Ministry, 
36;  party  government  workable 
through  the,  24,  37,  38 ;  elucida- 
tion of  modern  place  of  the,  in 
the  English  scheme,  39-40. 
House  of  Eepresentatives :  Speaker 
of,  in  revised  plan  of  G.  Morris's 
advisory  council  (1787),  77; 
Hamilton's  desire  to  be  heard 
in  the  (1790),  122;  attempts  to 
admit  Knox  and  Hamilton  to, 
123,  128;  resolution  (1792)  of 
the,  discussed  by  Cabinet,  125- 
126;  suggestions  that  Secretaries 
sit  in,  or  have  consultative  voice 
in  debates  of  the,  153,  155; 
salary  of  the  Speaker  of  the 
(1907),  157;  passes  bill  (1814) 
for  residence  requirement  for 
Attorney-General,  162;  Wirt  de- 
clines to  give  opinion  to  the, 
170;  Southard's  address  on  Wirt 
given  (1834)  in  the  Hall  of  the, 
171 ;  proceedings  in  the,  prior  to 
establishing  (1870)  executive 
Department  of  Justice,  185  ff . ; 
Speaker  of,  in  line  of  presiden- 
tial succession  (1792ff.),  192; 
country  without  Speaker  of 
(]881),  194;  committee  in,  favors 
(1798)  commissioner  of  marine, 
212;  attitude  of  the,  on  bill  for 
Navy  Department,  213  ff.;  vote 
in  the,  on  question  of  third  read- 
ing of  bill,  219;  attitude  (1789) 
of  the,  toward  postal  arrange- 
ments, 229;  suggestion  (1812)  to 
the,  on  need  of  Home  Depart- 
ment, 257-258  ;  against  Home  De- 
partment (1817  and  1825),  263, 


268;  appoints  committee  to  con- 
sider merits  of  Home  Depart- 
ment (1825),  270;  discusses  and 
accepts  bill  for  Interior  Depart- 
ment (1849),  279-281;  recom- 
mends national  agricultural  so- 
ciety and  board  (1796-1797), 
302;  fails  to  act  on  plan  (1817) 
for  National  Board  of  Agricul- 
ture, 307;  orders  extra  issue  of 
H.  L.  Ellsworth's  Patent  Report, 
312;  bill  for  Agricultural  Bureau 
before,  328;  proceedings  in  the, 
on  bill  (1862)  for  Agricultural 
Department,  330  ff. ;  bills  in  the, 
for  ninth  department  debated, 
357;  proceedings  in  the,  for  bill 
for  Department  of  Commerce  and 
Labor  (1901  ff.),  360-365; 
Speaker  of  the,  compared  with 
Vice-President,  387.  See  Con- 
gress, supra;  Senate,  infra. 

Hubbard,  W.  B. :  328,  332,  343. 

Humphreys,  David:  299. 

Humphreys,  Joshua:  211. 

Hunt,  Gaillard:  contributes  to  his- 
tory of  administration  of  foreign 
affairs  (1775ff.),  64;  quotation 
from,  as  to  Post-Office,  234; 
quotation  from,  as  to  Mint,  256, 
note  n. 

Hunter,  Eobert  M.  T.:  reports  bill 
(1849)  for  Department  of  the 
Interior  to  Senate,  281. 

Hutchinson,  Governor  Thomas: 
letters  of,  made  public,  226. 

Idea  of  a  Patriot  King  by  Vis- 
count Bolingbroke:  influence  of, 
over  George  III,  26,  note  31. 

Ilbert,  Sir  Courtenay:  approves 
Macaulay's  statement  of  the 
theory  of  cabinet  government,  38, 
note  57. 


INDEX 


449 


Immigration:  figures  on  (1830- 
1870),  315. 

Indians:  attitude  toward,  119; 
proposed  treaty  with  (1789), 
121;  St.  Glair's  expedition 
against,  123 ;  troubles  with,  dis- 
cussed by  Washington's  Cabinet, 
124;  department  for,  suggested 
(1825),  270. 

Indian  Affairs:  burden  of,  on  War 
Department,  259,  260-261,  271, 
273,  279;  report  on,  by  Secre- 
tary W.  H.  Crawford  (1816), 
259-260;  projects  to  place,  in 
Home  Department  (1816),  261, 
264,  note  25;  A.  B.  Wood- 
ward's plan  (1824)  for,  267; 
J.  Q.  Adams's  view  (1825)  of, 
270;  E.  J.  Walker's  plan  (1848) 
for,  278,  279. 

Industrial  Commission  (1898- 
1901):  352. 

Industrial  Revolution:    295. 

Industries,  Department  of  Na- 
tional: suggested  (1888),  336. 

Ingham,  Samuel  D. :   244. 

Interior,  Department  and  Secre- 
taryship of:  establishment 
(1849)  of,  6,  253  ff.,  285  ff., 
370;  early  suggestions  and  plans 
for  a,  75,  76,  84,  note «,  100, 
253-265;  movement  (1824  ff.) 
toward  a,  265-274;  attainment, 
274-285,  370;  reflections  on 
establishment  of  a,  285-287; 
remarks  on  title  of  act  establish- 
ing a,  289-290,  372;  Z.  Taylor's 
suggestion  (1849)  to  place  agri- 
cultural bureau  under  the,  313- 
314;  plan  to  place  agricultural 
affairs  directly  under,  321-322; 
comes  to  aid  of  Treasury  Depart- 
ment, 276  ff.,  350;  Bureau  of 
Labor  (]884)  placed  under,  353; 


Bureau  of  Labor  taken  (1888) 
from,  354;  remarks  on,  by  James 
E.  Mann  (1903),  360-361; 
Bureau  of  Census  (1903)  taken 
from,  365.  See  Adams,  J.  Q. ; 
Davis,  Jefferson,  supra;  Jackson, 
Andrew;  Madison;  Monroe; 
Morris,  G.;  Pinckney,  C.;  Polk; 
Vining;  Walker,  E.  J.;  Web- 
ster, D.;  Webster,  P.;  Wood- 
ward, A.  B.,  infra. 

Internal  Improvements:  sources  of 
movement,  265 ;  included  in  A.  B. 
Woodward's  Bureau  of  Public 
Economy,  267. 

Internal  Eevenue,  Solicitor  of: 
189. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission 
(1887):  353. 

Iredell,  James:  reflection  of,  on 
governor's  council  as  dissimilar 
to  English  precedents,  81-82; 
"opinions  in  writing"  a  substi- 
tute for  council  of  advice,  87-88 ; 
usage  of  phrase  (1788)  "cabi- 
net council,"  93. 

JACKSON,  ANDEEW  (1829- 
1837)  :  theory  of  executive  under 
his  Presidency,  67,  note  2,  379, 
381  ff. ;  relation  between,  and  his 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  103, 
372-373,  381-382;  views  of  oppo- 
nents of,  103-104,  372  ff.,  381 
ff . ;  admits  Postmaster-General  to 
Cabinet  (1829),  152,  220,  244, 
245,  249  ff.,  370-371;  meets 
Thomas  Hamilton,  153;  schism 
in  Cabinet  of,  154;  usage  of 
"cabinet"  in  state  papers  of, 
155;  influenced  by  Madison's 
views  regarding  Office  of  the 
Attorney-General,  162;  suggests 
re-organization  of  Attorney-Gen- 


450 


INDEX 


.  eralship,  173,  187;  dissatisfied 
with  results  of  suggestion  (1830), 
175-176;  inauguration  of,  220; 
appoints  J.  McLean  to  Supreme 
Court  (1829),  237,  246,  248,  249; 
comments  on  first  cabinet  ap- 
pointments of,  244;  character- 
izes tendency  of  federal  system 
of  government,  265,  272,  281; 
impressed  by  Madison's  sugges- 
tion of  a  Home  Department, 
272,  287;  comments  on  pros- 
perous condition  and  good  man- 
agement of  executive  depart- 
ments under  him,  273 ;  ideals  of 
Presidency  endangered  under, 
381-382;  intimacy  of,  with  Van 
Buren  (Vice -President),  387, 
note  4o;  troubles  with  Cabinet 
suggested,  393. 

James  I  (1603-1625) :  appearance 
of  term  '  *  cabinet  council ' ' 
under  (1622),  15;  significance 
of  term,  21. 

James  II  (1685-1688):  Macaulay 
on  the  reign  of,  37. 

Jameson,  J.  Franklin:  editor,  64; 
procures  copy  of  Neale's  Patent 
and  prints  it  (1894),  223,  note  5; 
views  regarding  Neale  useful, 
224,  note  6 ;  suggestions  regard- 
ing colonial  origin  of  Post-Office, 
229,  note  is. 

Jarvis,  William:  308. 

Jay,  John:  in  favor  of  single 
heads  (1780),  53,  201;  Secre- 
tary of  Foreign  Affairs  (1784 
ff.),  57  ff.,  115,  118;  admired  by 
French  charge  d'affaires,  Otto, 
57-58;  chief  executive  officer  of 
Confederation,  58 ;  considered 
for  high  place  (1788ff.),  59, 
112;  aspirant  for  Secretaryship 
of  Treasury,  113;  logical  candi- 


date for  head  of  State  Depart- 
ment, 115;  named  first  Chief  - 
Justice,  115;  written  opinion  as 
Chief -Justice  given  to  Washing- 
ton, 120-121 ;  correspondent  of 
Sir  J.  Sinclair,  299 ;  Washington 
advises  with,  as  to  last  annual 
message  (1796),  301. 

Jay,  William:  Life  of  John  Jay 
quoted,  115. 

JEFFEESON,  THOMAS  (1801- 
1809) :  ideal  of  the  advisory 
function  of  the  secretariat 
(1823),  47-48;  minister  to 
France  (1784  ff.),  49,  107,  116, 
117;  alludes  to  organization  of 
Treasury  Secretaryship,  102;  ap- 
pointment of,  as  Secretary  of 
State,  115  ff.;  friendship  with 
Madison,  116-117,  132  (biblio- 
graphy), 133;  not  intimate  with 
Washington  before  1789,  116; 
reputation  of  (1789),  117;  hesi- 
tation of,  in  accepting  Secre- 
taryship, 117,  255-256;  written 
opinions  of,  under  Washington, 
120;  reports  cabinet  meetings 
(1791)  to  Washington,  124; 
theory  of  Vice-Presidency 
(1797),  124-125,  384-385;  pre- 
sent at  cabinet  meetings  (1792), 
125-126;  hostility  toward  Ham- 
ilton, 129-130;  resignation  of, 
130;  usage  of  term  ' 'cabinet," 
and  conception  of  term,  136, 
137,  139,  140  ff.,  149,  379;  cabi- 
net meetings  under,  141-142; 
comment  on  offices  of  President 
and  Vice-President,  145,  notesi; 
reflections  of,  on  need  (1785ff.) 
of  an  American  navy,  204-205; 
on  conditions  of  Mediterranean 
commerce  (1791),  207;  view  of, 
as  to  place  of  postal  affairs  in 


INDEX 


451 


administration,  233-234;  idea  of 
domestic  business  annexed  to 
State  Department,  255-256;  esti- 
mate of  State  Department  ex- 
penses, 256. 

Jenckes,  Thomas  A.:  186,  187,  190. 

Jenks,  Edward:  view  of  signifi- 
cance of  executive  committees 
during  the  Long  Parliament,  23, 
note  26 ;  impossibility  of  complete 
exposition  of  cabinet  govern- 
ment, 42. 

John  (1199-1216):  organized  coun- 
cil under,  10. 

JOHNSON,  ANDREW  (1865- 
1869)  :  comment  on  relations  of, 
to  Senate  (1867),  381;  usage  of 
1 '  constitutional  advisers, ' '  390 ; 
theory  of  Cabinet  (1867),  and 
reflections  on  it,  391-393; 
troubles  with  Cabinet  suggested, 
393. 

Johnson,  Samuel:  definitions  of 
"cabinet  council"  in  his  Dic- 
tionary (1755ff.),  44. 

Joyce,  Herbert :  on  American  Posts 
(1692-1707),  224,  note  T. 

Jubilee  of  the  Constitution  (1839) 
by  J.  Q.  Adams:  reference  to, 
271. 

Judiciary  Act  (1789)  :  origin  of 
and  comment  on,  105-106,  159; 
Wirt's  comments  (1818)  on,  167 
ff . ;  C.  Cushing's  comments 
(1854)  on,  179  ff. 

Judiciary  Committee:  receives 
Wirt's  letter  (1818),  166;  re- 
ports on  succession  to  Presidency, 
192ff. 

"Junius":  familiar  with  De 
Lolme,  28. 

Junto  of  1640:  20. 

Justice,  Department  of:  establish- 
ment (1870),  160,  181,  187,  373; 


suggestions  (1830)  for,  173; 
Gushing 's  plan,  looking  toward, 
180-181;  maturing  of  bill  for  a, 
186-187;  not  a  new  organization, 
187-188;  Senator  G.  F.  Hoar's 
comment  on,  195;  Judge  A.  B. 
Woodward's  suggestion  (1824), 
267. 

Kendall,  Amos :  Postmaster-Gen- 
eral (1835-1840),  245;  evidence 
of,  on  appointment  of  McLean 
(1829)  to  Supreme  Court,  246; 
member  of  Agricultural  Society 
of  the  U.  S.  (1841-1842),  317; 
comment  (1837)  on  unity  of  the 
executive,  380,  note  25. 

Kennedy,  John  Pendleton :  Memoirs 
of  Wirt  (1849)  cited  and  com- 
mented on,  167. 

Kennedy,  Joseph  C.  G.:  comments 
on  influence  (1860)  of  U.  S. 
Agricultural  Society,  326-327 ; 
predicts  Department  of  Agricul- 
ture, 327. 

Kern,  John  W. :  388,  note  «. 

King,  Euf us :  opposed  to  council  of 
appointment  (1787),  71;  com- 
ment on  appointment  of  U.  S. 
Treasurer,  102;  usage  of  "cabi- 
net" by,  137;  "Diary"  quoted, 
137;  opposes  bill  for  Home  De- 
partment (1817)  in  Senate,  262- 
263. 

' '  King 's  Friends  ":  33. 

Kingship:  ideal  of  primitive  (Ho- 
meric, Eoman,  Hebrew,  Ger- 
manic), 1. 

Knights  of  Labor:  urge  (1886) 
Commission  of  Labor,  353 ;  favor 
(1903)  Department  of  Commerce 
and  Labor,  358-359. 

Knox,  Henry:  Secretary  at  War 
(1785-1789),  59,  112,  113,  118; 


452 


INDEX 


appointment  (1789)  as  Secretary 
of  War,  112  ff. ;  resignation 
(1794)  of,  130,  151;  in  Senate 
chamber  (1789),  121-122;  at  cabi- 
net meetings,  123  ff.,  125-126 ; 
visited  by  La  Rochefoucauld- 
Liancourt,  151;  concerned  with 
naval  affairs  (1790  ff.),  207; 
work  of,  in  connection  with 
''second  commencement  of  the 
navy"  (1794),  207,  210-211. 
Knox,  Philander  C. :  salary  of,  as 
Secretary  of  State  (1909-1911), 
397-398. 

Labor:  origins  of  organized,  347; 
efforts  at  recognition  (1865ff.) 
in  federal  administration,  346- 
347,  351  ff .,  359 ;  opposition  of 
American  Federation  of,  to  De- 
partment of  Commerce  and 
Labor,  359 ;  impression  of  sub- 
ordination of,  in  federal  admin- 
istration, 364ff.,  375;  interests 
of,  similar  to  those  of  commerce, 
357. 

Labor,  Bureau  (1884)  of:  353  ff., 
359. 

Labor,  Bureau  (1903)  of:  358, 
362,  364,  375. 

Labor,  Commissioner  of:  354,  358. 

Labor,  Department  (1888)  of: 
337,  353-354,  358  ff.,  364. 

Land:  see  Territorial  Expansion, 
infra. 

La  Eochefoucauld-Liancourt,  Due 
de:  visits  General  H.  Knox; 
comments  on  presidential  office 
in  his  Travels,  351. 

Lawrence,  Hon.  William:  quoted 
(1870)  on  significance  of  the 
Cabinet,  and  on  practice  of 
reckoning  the  Attorney-General 
a  member  of  the  body,  156,  188. 


Lee,  Arthur:  member  of  Treasury 
Board  (1785  ff.),  118. 

Lee,  Major  H.:    289. 

Lee,  Eichard  H. :  favors  council  of 
appointment  (1787),  72;  also 
advisory  council  for  President, 
88. 

Lewis,  Dixon  H. :   316. 

Library  of  Congress:  343. 

LINCOLN,  ABRAHAM  (1861- 
1865):  nomination  of,  238; 
member  of  U.  S.  Agricultural 
Society,  320;  recommends  Bureau 
of  Agriculture  (1861),  330; 
signs  (1862)  bill  creating  De- 
partment of  Agriculture,  334; 
troubles  in  Cabinet  of,  suggested, 
393. 

Lincoln,  Benjamin:  Secretary  at 
War,  54,  note  19. 

Littauer,  Hon.  Lucius  N. :  intro- 
duces term  ' l  Cabinet ' '  into  fed- 
eral law  (1907),  157-158. 

Livermore,  Samuel:  on  committee 
(1789)  to  organize  departments, 
109;  objects  to  principle  of  suc- 
cession (1792)  to  Presidency, 
192. 

Livingston,  Edward:  reference  of, 
to  Cabinet  in  Congress  (1798), 
138,  214-215. 

Livingston,  Robert  R. :  on  com- 
mittee (1780)  to  arrange  de- 
partments, 52;  appointed  as  first 
Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs 
(1781),  54,  note  i»;  estimate  of, 
56,  note  27 ;  aspirant  for  Secre- 
tary of  Treasury  (1789),  113. 

Livingston,  Walter:  member  of 
Treasury  Board  (1785  ff.),  118. 

Lodge,  Senator  Henry  Cabot:  on 
Senators  as  true  constitutional 
advisers  of  the  President,  85, 
note  44 ;  comment  on  language  of, 


INDEX 


453 


regarding  the  Cabinet,  119;  esti- 
mates G.  Cabot,  his  ancestor,  216; 
theory  of  significance  of  ' '  con- 
stitutional advisers,"  390,  note 

47. 

Loring,  Dr.  George  B.:  342,  343, 
note  *. 

Lossing,  Benson  J.:  editor,  131. 

Louisville  Courier -Journal  cited, 
194. 

Lounsbury,  Professor  Thomas  K. : 
cited  on  J.  F.  Cooper's  Notions 
of  the  Americans  (1828),  155, 
note  53. 

Low,  Sidney:  on  usage  of  "Prime 
Minister, ' '  158,  note  «°. 

Lowell,  A.  Lawrence:  quotation 
from  Government  of  England, 
158,  note  «o. 

Lowell,  James  K. :  quoted  on  C. 
Gushing,  183. 

Lowndes,  William:  Monroe's  letter 
to,  on  Attorney- Generalship,  164- 
165;  correspondence  of,  on  advis- 
ability (1816)  of  creating  new 
.executive  department,  261  ff. 

Macaulay,  Thomas  B. :  first  his- 
torian to  appreciate  history  of 
English  Cabinet  (History  of 
England,  1848ff.),  37  ff.;  esti- 
mate of,  38,  45. 

McClelland,  Kobert:  Secretary  of 
the  Interior  (1853-1857),  at 
meetings  of  U.  S.  Agricultural 
Society,  319. 

McDougall,  Major-General  Alex- 
ander: appointment  (1781)  to 
Marine  Secretaryship,  54,  201; 
failure  to  qualify,  201,  203. 

McHenry,  Dr.  James:  Secretary  of 
War  (1796-1800),  137;  naval 
affairs  under,  210  ff. ;  his  ability 
estimated,  214. 


McKINLEY,  WILLIAM  (1897- 
1901)  :  friendly  relation  of,  with 
Vice-President  Hobart,  385  ff.; 
freely  consulted  Hobart,  386; 
intimacy  of,  with  Hobart  com- 
pared with  other  similar  intima- 
cies, 387,  note  40. 

Maclay,  William:  on  authorship  of 
Judiciary  Act  (1789),  106,  note 
21 ;  account  of  Washington's 
reception  (1789)  in  the  Senate, 
121  ff. 

McLean,  John:  his  conception  of 
Cabinet,  149-150,  242;  appoint- 
ment of,  as  Postmaster-General, 
220,  236  ff. ;  comment  of,  on 
rank  of  office,  220,  239;  views 
of  patronage,  220,  242,  249; 
characterization  of,  and  study  of 
his  services,  236  ff . ;  suggested 
(1825)  for  cabinet  place,  237; 
declines  appointment  (1841)  as 
Secretary  of  War,  237;  candi- 
date for  Presidency,  237-238, 
246;  impressions  of,  upon  Presi- 
dent J.  Q.  Adams  and  E.  Everett, 
238  ff . ;  efficiency  of,  239-243, 
passim,  250;  development  of  an- 
tagonism between,  and  President 
Adams,  240  ff. ;  problems  of  ap- 
pointments and  removals,  241, 
246  ff . ;  quoted  on  patronage, 
242;  proposed  as  member  of 
Jackson 's  first  Cabinet,  244 ;  evi- 
dence of  J.  Q.  Adams,  Kendall, 
and  Sargent  on  appointment  to 
Supreme  Court  (1829),  245  ff.; 
alleged  aspirant  (1829)  for  Sec- 
retaryship of  War,  247;  com- 
ment on  salary  of,  240,  248. 

Macon,  Nathaniel:  resolution 
(1816)  of,  quoted,  260;  signifi- 
cance of  resolution,  260  ff. 

MADISON,  JAMES   (1809-1817): 


454 


INDEX 


estimate  of  B.  E.  Livingston,  56, 
note 27 ;  theory  of  executive  in 
Convention  (1737),  67-68;  com- 
ment on  administrative  officers, 
68;  plan  of  council  of  revision, 
69,  86 ;  sees  force  in  Mason 's 
project  for  council  of  appoint- 
ment, 71 ;  suggests  advisory  coun- 
cil, 74;  on  weakness  of  state 
executives,  80-81;  receives  C. 
Pinckney's  Observations,  90; 
guiding  influence  in  debates  on 
departments  (1789),  97  ff.,  99- 
100;  difficulties  as  President,  102- 
103,  146  ff.,  393;  on  authorship 
of  Judiciary  Act,  106;  on  com- 
mittee (1789)  to  arrange  depart- 
ments, 109;  suggested  for  Home 
Department  (1788),  112,  255; 
influence  of,  on  appointments  of 
E.  Eandolph  and  T.  Jefferson, 
114-117;  visit  to  Jefferson,  117, 
256 ;  friendship  of,  for  Jefferson, 
115  ff.,  132  (bibliography),  133; 
disapproves  of  allowing  Secre- 
taries to  appear  in  H.  of  K.,  123 ; 
usage  by,  of  term  "cabinet," 
136,  137;  Cabinet  of,  attacked  by 
J.  Quincy,  147  ff.;  urges  (1816) 
reform  in  office  of  Attorney-Gen- 
eral, 160  ff . ;  influence  of,  on 
Presidents  J.  Q.  Adams,  Jackson, 
and  Polk,  162,  173  ff.,  176,  269, 
272;  favors  residence  require- 
ment (1814)  for  Attorney-Gen- 
eral, 162,  163 ;  possible  author  of 
No.  50  of  The  Federalist,  162, 
note 7 ;  comments  on  W.  Pink- 
ney's  resignation  (1814),  163; 
on  private  practice  of  Attorney- 
General,  161,  163-164;  objects  to 
principle  of  law  (1792)  of  presi- 
dential succession,  192;  his  pro- 
phetic suggestion  as  to  succession 


(1787),  192;  reasons  of,  against 
naval  establishment,  209;  special 
message  (1812)  on  burdens  of 
principal  officers,  257;  directs 
W.  H.  Crawford  to  report  on 
Indian  Affairs,  259;  recommends 
additional  executive  department 
(1816),  261,  287;  D.  Webster's 
reference  to  (184 9),  283;  interest 
of,  in  problem  of  federal  regula- 
tion of  commerce,  348;  quoted 
(1789)  on  responsibility  of  ex- 
ecutive, 380. 

Malthus,  Thomas:  Essay  on  the 
Principle  of  Population  (1798) 
referred  to,  298. 

Mann,  Hon.  James  E. :  opposes 
introduction  of  "Cabinet"  into 
federal  law  (1907),  157-158; 
leading  debater  in  H.  of  E. 
(1903)  favoring  Department  of 
Commerce  and  Labor,  360; 
sketches  history  of  administra- 
tive departments,  360  ff . ;  reflec- 
tions on  his  efforts,  363,  367. 

Manners,  Et.  Hon.  Lord  John  J. 
E.:  252. 

Manufactures :  G.  Morris 's  provi- 
sion (1787)  for,  254;  idea  of 
promoting,  by  establishment  of 
a  Home  Department  (1825), 
268;  suggestion  (1862)  of  a 
minister  for,  331 ;  influence  of, 
on  legislation,  331;  P.  Webster 
(1783)  on,  348-349;  A.  Hamil- 
ton ("Eeport")  on,  349-350; 
committee  (1819)  on,  estab- 
lished, 350;  trend  of  effort  for 
federal  recognition  of,  in  admin- 
istrative office,  351  ff. 

Mapes,  Professor  James  J. : 
opposes  Bureau  and  favors 
(1854)  Department  of  Agricul- 
ture, 324-325. 


INDEX 


455 


Marbury  vs.  Madison  (1803): 
cited,  155;  quoted,  380-381. 

Marcy,  William  L.:    178,  275. 

Marine,  Agent  of  (1781  ff.)  :  200; 
E.  Morris's  work  in  capacity  of, 
202-203. 

Marine,  Commissioner  of  (1798) : 
suggested,  212. 

Marine,  Minister  or  Secretary  of: 
office  established  (1781),  54; 
McDougall  elected  but  fails  to 
qualify,  54,  201,  203;  work  of, 
done  by  E.  Morris,  54-55,  202  ff. ; 
general  reflections  on  need  of, 
203-204;  provision  for,  in  Ells- 
worth's plan  of  council  (1787), 
75;  in  G.  Morris's  plan,  76,  84, 
note  43 ;  in  C.  Pinckney  's  plan, 
91.  See  Navy,  infra. 

Marine  Committee  (1776-1779) : 
200;  vice-president  of,  203. 

Marshall,  Senator  Humphrey:  op- 
posed permanent  naval  estab- 
lishment, 2]  3. 

Marshall,  John :  written  opinion  as 
Chief-Justice  to  President  Mon- 
roe (1821),  121,  note  23;  uses 
term  "cabinet"  (1803),  155;  in 
J.  Adams's  Cabinet  (1800-1801), 
217;  formulates  ideal  of  execu- 
tive discretion,  380-381. 

Mary  (1553-1558):  divisions  in 
Privy  Council  of,  20. 

Maryland :  Governor 's  council  in, 
95;  council  of  state  in,  95-96: 
Archives  and  Journal  of  Lower 
House  of,  cited,  96. 

Mason,  Colonel  George:  favors 
(1787)  Sherman's  theory  of  the 
executive,  67;  agrees  with  Madi- 
son as  to  council  of  revision,  69 ; 
fears  appointing  power,  70;  pro- 
jects plan  for  council  of  appoint- 
ment, 70,  note  « ;  comment  on 


plan  of,  71;  opposed  G.  Morris's 
idea  of  council  of  state,  but 
favored  advisory  council,  89, 
notes  sa  and  54 ;  predicts  later 
Cabinet,  89-90,  94,  99;  views 
compared  with  those  of  E.  Gerry, 
99;  grandson  of,  opposed  to 
Interior  Department  (1849),  281. 

Mason,  James  M. :  opposes  Interior 
Department,  281  ff.,  331. 

Mason,  John  Y. :  Attorney-General 
(1845-1846),  177. 

Massachusetts:  colonial  post 
(1639)  in,  221. 

Massachusetts  Historical  Society : 
correspondence  (1828)  between 
E.  Everett  and  John  McLean  on 
patronage  communicated  (1908) 
to,  242. 

Massinger,  Philip  (1583-1640) : 
cited  on  usage  of  "cabinet," 
15. 

Meigs,  Eeturn  J.,  Jr. :  summoned 
(1822)  as  Postmaster-General 
into  cabinet  meeting,  243. 

Mercer,  John  F. :  member  of  Con- 
vention (1787),  91,  note  ei; 
interested  in  Columbian  Agri- 
cultural Society,  307. 

Mereness,  Newton  D. :  cited  on 
Maryland  council  of  state  (Mary- 
land as  a  Proprietary  Province), 
95-96. 

Merryman,  John :  341,342. 

Mexico,  War  with:  checks  admin- 
istrative reform  in  U.  S.,  176, 
274;  increase  of  administrative 
burdens  due  to,  253;  aids  move- 
ment toward  Interior  Depart- 
ment, 274,  286. 

Mines,  Bureau  of:  suggested 
(1824),  267. 

Mint :  Master  of  the  English,  222 ; 
placed  by  Washington  under 


456 


INDEX 


State  Department,  256,  note  «• ; 
project  (1817)  to  place,  under 
Treasury  fails,  262;  suggestion 
to  place  in  Department  of 
Domestic  Affairs,  264,  note 25, 
267. 

Mitchell,  John:  364. 

MONEOE,  JAMES  (1817-1825): 
difficulties  as  President,  102-103, 
146;  written  opinion  given  to, 
by  Chief-Justice  Marshall,  121, 
note  23 ;  « <  Virginia  Influence, ' ' 
148-149;  letter  on  Attorney- 
Generalship  quoted,  164-165; 
same  letter  referred  to,  181-182 ; 
reflections  on  letter,  165-166; 
appointment  of  W.  Wirt  (1817), 
166;  "Post-Office  Department" 
(1825),  231;  originates  practice 
of  asking  annual  report  from 
Postmaster-General,  235-236,  240, 
250;  nominates  J.  McLean  as 
Postmaster-General  (1823),  236; 
summons  E.  J.  Meigs,  Jr.,  to 
cabinet  meeting  (1822),  243; 
ideas  (1812)  on  Home  Depart- 
ment, 258;  favors  (1824)  De- 
partment of  the  Interior,  268, 
287;  D.  Webster's  reference 
(1849)  to,  283. 

Montesquieu:  Esprit  des  Lois  re- 
ferred to,  26  ff. 

' ' Monticellian  dynasty":  149. 

Morrill,  Justin  S. :  member  of 
U.  S.  Agricultural  Society,  320; 
progress  of  his  Land  Bill,  326. 

Morris,  Gouverneur:  favors  (1780) 
single  headships,  53,  201;  in 
accord  with  Madison's  theory  of 
the  executive  (1787),  67;  view 
of,  regarding  appointments  of 
principal  officers,  69 ;  plan  of,  for 
council  of  state,  75  ff. ;  composi- 
tion, functions,  and  object  of 


such  council,  76-77 ;  on  committee 
finally  to  consider  unfinished 
parts,  77,  note  28  •  precedents  for 
idea  and  plan  of,  78  ff . ;  signifi- 
cance of  plan  of,  82-83;  sketch 
of  experience  of,  83-84;  failure 
of  plan  of,  explained,  84,  note 
43,  85;  plan  of,  opposed  by  G. 
Mason,  89;  law  officer  in  council 
of,  107;  later  (1789)  conception 
of  council  in  Observations  of, 
107-108;  friendly  with  E. 
Morris,  108;  objects  to  principle 
of  law  (1792)  for  presidential 
succession,  192;  favors  (1787) 
naval  establishment,  206;  func- 
tions of  Secretary  of  Domestic 
Affairs  (1787),  254;  correspon- 
dent of  Sir  J.  Sinclair,  299;  his 
Secretary  of  Commerce  and  Fi- 
nance, and  Minister  of  Commerce 
(1787ff.),  347-348. 

Morris,  Eobert :  favors  single  heads 
(1776  ff.),  50,  53,  201;  appoint- 
ment of,  as  Superintendent  of 
Finance  (1781),  53-54,  noteis; 
conducts  naval  affairs,  54-55, 
202-203;  retirement  (1784)  of, 
55,  57,  202;  comments  on  execu- 
tive ability  of,  56  ff.,  203 ;  oppo- 
sition to,  57;  estimate  of,  59, 
203;  assisted  by  G.  Morris,  83; 
G.  Morris 's  Observations  sent  to, 
108;  suggested  as  first  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury,  112-113; 
chosen  Senator,  112;  alleged 
offer  of  Treasury  portfolio  to, 
131-132. 

Mosher,  Eobert  Brent :  comment  on 
his  Executive  Register  (1903), 
118,  note  is. 

Moustier,  Count  de:   47. 

Murat,  Achille:  comments  on  ad- 
ministrative officers,  152. 


INDEX 


457 


National  Domain.  See  Territorial 
Expansion,  infra. 

National  Institute  for  the  Promo- 
tion of  Science:  316. 

National  Intelligencer:  mentioned, 
131,  268,  289;  quoted  (1817)  on 
question  of  constitutionality  of 
a  Home  Department,  264,  note 
25,  265. 

National  Journal:  mentioned,  266, 
268,  288,  289. 

Naval  Committee  (1775-1776)  : 
200. 

Navy:  starting-point  (1775)  of 
national,  200;  origins  of,  201  ff.; 
President  commander-in-chief  of, 
206;  second  commencement 
(1794)  of,  207;  fear  of,  in 
South,  208-209;  arguments 
against  national,  209. 

Navy,  Department  and  Secretary- 
ship of  the:  establishment 
(1798)  of  the,  6,  199  ff.,  213, 
370,  372;  status  of  naval  organi- 
zation (1789),  100;  organization 
of,  discussed,  138,  206;  law- 
officer  for  the,  189;  origins  of, 
201-213;  subject  of,  forced 
(1786)  before  the  Congress  of 
the  Confederation,  206;  involved 
under  War  Department,  206, 
note  i6 ;  analysis  of  debates 
(1798)  in  Senate  and  House, 
213-215,  219;  G.  Cabot's  ap- 
pointment to,  216;  B.  Stoddert's 
appointment  to,  216-217;  com- 
ment on  establishment  of,  217- 
218. 

Navy,  Secretary  of  the:  Wirt  de- 
clines to  give  opinion  to,  on  ques- 
tion of  fact,  170. 

Neale,  Thomas :  quotation  from 
patent  issued  to,  222;  signifi- 


cance of  patent  of,  223-224,  229; 
sketch  of,  223-224. 

Necker,  Jacques:  53. 

Nelson,  Judge  Hugh:  letter  to, 
from  W.  Wirt  analyzed  and 
quoted,  166  ff. 

Nelson,  Senator  Knute:  358. 

Neutrality :  Washington 's  reflec- 
tions on  sincere,  209. 

Neutrality  Proclamation  (1793): 
agreed  upon  by  Cabinet,  127. 

New  England:  commercial  inter- 
ests of,  199. 

New  Jersey:  Privy  Council  of,  80. 

New  Mexico :  253,  278,  279,  291. 

New  Netherlands:  colonial  post 
(1657)  in,  221. 

Newton,  Isaac:  first  commissioner 
of  agriculture  (1862),  334. 

New  York  City:  seat  of  govern- 
ment (1790),  117;  assembling  of 
principal  officers  in,  118;  postal 
communication  (1672)  between, 
and  Boston,  221-222;  seat  of 
colonial  Post-Office,  225. 

New  York  Historical  Society :  J.  Q. 
Adams  addresses  (1839),  272. 

New  York  State:  council  of  ap- 
pointment in,  72;  cabinet  coun- 
cil (1792)  in  government  of, 
136;  opposition  to  Navy  Depart- 
ment (1798)  from,  214;  pro- 
gressive spirit  in  regard  to  aiding 
agriculture  in,  306. 

Nicholson,  Captain  Samuel:  211. 

Niles,  Senator  John  M. :  opposes 
Department  of  the  Interior 
(1849),  282. 

Norfolk,  Va. :  landing-place  of  Jef- 
ferson (1789),  117. 

Norman  Conquest :  institutional 
significance  of  period  of,  9. 

North,  Roger  (1653-1734)  :  cited  on 
usage  of  "cabinet,"  15;  his  ex- 


458 


INDEX 


planation  of  development  of  the 
Cabinet  out  of  the  Privy  Coun- 
cil, 18-19. 
Northern  Securities  Merger:  355. 

Objections  by  George  Mason:  cited, 
89. 

Observations  on  the  Finances  of 
the  United  States,  in  1789  by 
Gouverneur  Morris:  quoted,  107- 
108. 

Observations  on  the  plan  of  Gov- 
ernment submitted  to  the  Fed- 
eral Convention,  by  Charles 
Pinckney:  cited  or  quoted,  90- 
91,  254-255,  370. 

Oliver,  Andrew:   226. 

Opinions,  judicial:  usage  regard- 
ing, in  England,  the  colonies, 
and  the  states  of  the  Union,  129, 
note  41. 

Opinions  of  the  Attorneys-General: 
origin  of,  171;  Wirt's  contribu- 
tion to,  171-172,  note  23;  C. 
Gushing 's  contribution  to,  178. 

Opinions  in  writing:  provision  in 
Constitution  for,  5,  78,  87;  P. 
Webster's  suggestion  (1783)  as 
to,  62;  G.  Morris's  idea  of,  76- 
77;  practice  of,  among  colonial 
and  state  governors,  80;  com- 
parison between  P.  Webster's 
and  G.  Morris's  ideas  of,  83; 
IredelPs  view  of,  87-88;  Wash- 
ington's practice  regarding,  120- 
121,  note23,  382;  James  B. 
Thayer  on  practice  of,  129; 
Judge  A.  B.  Woodward  on,  143; 
comments  on  prevailing  practice 
regarding,  382  ff. 

Orange,  House  of:  51. 

Ordinances  of  1781:  52,  53,  59; 
significance  of  system  provided 


by,  55  ff . ;  influenced  by  British 
and  French  traditions,  55-56. 

Oregon  Country:  253,  274,  278,  279, 
291. 

Osgood,  Professor  Herbert  L. : 
quoted  on  colonial  usage  and 
idea  of  " privy  council,"  95; 
American  Colonies  in  the  Seven- 
teenth Century  by,  cited,  95. 

Osgood,  Samuel:  on  Treasury 
Board  (1785  ff.),  118,  230; 
appointed  as  Postmaster-General 
(1789),  228,  230;  sketch  of,  230; 
reports  to  A.  Hamilton  (1790), 
234;  successors  (1791-1823)  of, 
characterized,  236. 

Otis,  Harrison  Grey:  reasons  of, 
favoring  Navy  Department 
(1798),  215. 

Otto,  French  charge  d'affaires: 
approbation  for  John  Jay,  57  ff . ; 
comments  of,  on  Jay's  import- 
ance, with  general  expression  of 
admiration  for  administrative 
system,  58. 

Paine,  Senator  Elijah:  213. 

Palfrey,  John  Gorham:  accountable 
for  "Home  Department"  incon- 
gruity (1849),  280-281. 

Parliament:  gains  control  of  Cabi- 
net, 2 ;  undeveloped  under  Henry 
III,  10;  increasing  power  of,  in 
fourteenth  century,  10-11;  sub- 
missive to  Crown  and  Privy 
Council,  11;  increasing  strength 
of,  under  Stuarts,  12-13,  16; 
steps  of  Long,  to  control  King, 
13-15,  23;  suspicious  of  inner 
councils,  21-22;  mechanism  of, 
in  controlling  King  adjusting 
itself,  22  ff. ;  House  of  Commons 
gaining  direction  of,  through 
Cabinet,  24  ff.  See  House  of 


INDEX 


459 


Commons,  supra;  also  following 
topic. 

Parliamentary  Government:  origins 
of,  in  sixteenth  and  seventeenth 
centuries,  11,  15  ff. ;  development 
of,  in  seventeenth  and  eighteenth 
centuries,  12,  22  ff.;  directive 
forces  of,  with  Whigs,  26;  ma- 
turing of  system  of,  in  nineteenth 
century,  12,  36  ff.,  39-44;  influ- 
ence of  reform  measures  (1832) 
on,  37;  Macaulay  on,  38;  no  in- 
fluence of,  in  United  States 
(1775-1789),  42-43.  See  Cabinet, 
English;  Parliament,  supra. 

Parsons  vs.  United  States  (1896): 
cited,  381,  note  29. 

Patent  Office:  suggestions  to 
transfer,  from  State  Depart- 
ment (1830),  173;  organization 
(1812)  of,  257-258;  project  to 
place  under  Home  Department 
(1816),  261,  264,  note  25;  Judge 
Woodward's  suggestion  (1824) 
as  to,  267;  J.  Q.  Adams's  view 
(1825)  of,  270;  Folk's  sugges- 
tion (1845)  as  to,  274;  E.  J. 
Walker's  plan  (1848)  for,  278; 
aids  farming  interests,  309  ff . ; 
origin  and  development  of  the, 
309-313;  superintendent  of  agri- 
cultural affairs  in  the,  322. 

Patents,  Commissioner  and  Super- 
intendent of,  309  ff. 

Patronage:  correspondence  of  E. 
Everett  and  J.  McLean  on,  220; 
in  Post-Office  Department,  239; 
increase  of,  basis  of  some  opposi- 
tion to  Interior  Department 
(1849),  280,  286;  in  England, 
297. 

Paullin,  Charles  O. :  contributes  to 
administrative  history  of  the 
Navy  in  the  Eevolutionary  epoch, 


64;  use  of  ' '  concentrative, " 
201,  note3;  characterization  of 
E.  Morris,  203;  quoted  on  pro- 
ject (1786)  of  a  Marine  Depart- 
ment, 206;  quoted  on  naval 
affairs  (1794ff.),  210,  212. 

Penn,  William:    222. 

Pennsylvania  Gazette  (1781): 
quoted  on  plan  of  council,  60. 

Pennsylvania  Packet  (1781): 
quoted  on  plan  of  council,  59-60. 

Pension  Office:  E.  J.  Walker's 
plan  (1848)  for,  278. 

Pepys,  Samuel  (1633-1703) :  usage 
of  term  " cabinet,"  15;  Diary 
reference  (1664)  to  T.  Neale, 
223. 

Percy,  Lord  Eustace:  on  Privy 
Council  under  Tudors,  20,  note  22. 

Peterborough,  Earl  of  (Charles 
Mordaunt)  quoted  (1711),  17. 

Peters,  Eichard:   299. 

Phelps,  Hon.  John  E.:  objects  to 
new  cabinet  officer  (1862),  333. 

Philadelphia :  seat  of  Eevolutionary 
postal  administration,  227,  228. 

Pickering,  Timothy :  in  J.  Adams 's 
Cabinet,  137;  helps  to  name  the 
frigates,  208 ;  naval  affairs 
under,  210,  211;  letter  urging 
G.  Cabot's  acceptance  of  naval 
Secretaryship  quoted,  216;  in- 
structed as  Postmaster-General 
by  Washington,  234;  his  distinc- 
tion, 236. 

PIEECE,  FEANKLIN  (1853- 
1857) :  Cabinet  of,  commented 
on,  178,  183;  regard  of,  for  C. 
Gushing,  178;  member  of  U.  S. 
Agricultural  Society,  319. 

Pinckney,  Charles:  in  accord  with 
E.  Sherman's  theory  (1787)  of 
the  executive,  67;  views  of,  as 
to  council  of  revision,  69-70,  75, 


460 


INDEX 


86,  90,  note  58;  "Outline"  of, 
and  first  suggestion  of  advisory 
council,  74;  favors  President 
advising  with  principal  officers, 
75;  doubts  of,  regarding  Ells- 
worth's plan  of  council,  75-76; 
seconds  plan  of  G.  Morris,  76, 
90-91 ;  Observations  of,  cited  and 
quoted,  90  ff.,  254-255,  370;  two 
differing  title-pages  to  pamphlet 
of,  90,  note  58 ;  comments  on  con- 
ciliar  plan  of,  90  ff . ;  usage  of 
term  " cabinet  council"  by,  91 
ff.,  136,  370 ;  familiarity  of,  with 
traditions  of  British  history,  92, 
note  «* ;  proposal  of,  to  allow 
executive  to  demand  opinions  of 
Supreme  Court  Judges,  129;  in 
favor  (1787)  of  Home  Depart- 
ment, 254-255. 

Pinkney,  William:  resignation 
(1814)  as  Attorney-General,  162- 
163,  note8;  correspondent  of  Sir 
J.  Sinclair,  299. 

Pitt,  William  (the  younger): 
Prime  Minister  in  modern  sense, 
31;  period  of  Ministry  of,  32, 
note  44 ;  English  Board  of  Agri- 
culture (1793ff.)  established 
under,  297. 

Platt,  Senator  Orville  H. :  objec- 
tions (1888)  of,  to  raising  rank 
of  Department  of  Agriculture, 
and  so  increasing  size  of  Cabi- 
net, 335-338,  passim. 

Plumb,  Senator  Preston  B. :  on 
Secretaryship  of  Agriculture 
(1888),  337-338. 

Political  Class  Book  (1831)  by  W. 
Sullivan:  quoted  on  Home  De- 
partment, 273,  note  43. 

POLK,  JAMES  K.  (1845-1849): 
theory  of  executive  (1848)  of, 
67;  influence  of  Madison's  view 


of  the  Attorney-Generalship  on, 
162;  on  organization  of  the 
Attorney-General's  Office 
(1845),  176;  on  casual  absences 
of  cabinet  officers  from  duties  in 
Washington  (1845),  176-177; 
his  lapse  of  memory,  177,  note 
33;  influence  of  Jackson  over, 
274;  Cabinet  of,  carefully 
chosen,  275;  signs  bill  (1849) 
for  Interior  Department,  285; 
Diary  of,  quoted  (1848)  on  prac- 
tice of  written  opinions,  383; 
evidence  of,  on  number  of  cabi- 
net meetings  (1845-1849),  383, 
note32;  friendship  of,  for  Vice- 
President  Dallas,  385,  387,  note 
40;  invites  outsiders  (but  not 
Vice-P resident)  into  cabinet 
meetings,  385. 

Pollnitz,  Baron:  correspondent  of 
President  Washington,  295-296. 

Poore,  B.  P.:  estimates  number  of 
agricultural  societies  on  books 
(1860)  of  U.  S.  Agricultural 
Society,  305,  note  22 ;  character- 
izes agriculture,  321,  note42; 
statement  of,  cited  regarding 
U.  S.  Agricultural  Society  (c. 
1865),  341;  his  "  History  of 
Agriculture"  (1866),  341;  ac- 
count of  last  meeting  of  U.  S. 
Agricultural  Society  (1881), 
341  ff. 

Population:  growth  (1830)  of, 
1 72 ;  J.  Q.  Adams 's  comment 
(1821)  on,  266;  importance  of 
western  movement  of,  293,  305; 
increase  of,  helpful  in  enforcing 
need  of  Department  of  Agricul- 
ture (1862),  334. 

Porter,  David:  247. 

Postmaster-General  (American)  : 
admitted  (1829)  to  Cabinet,  152, 


INDEX 


461 


220,  232,  244,  245,  249  ff.,  370- 
371;  comments  on  salary  (1907) 
of,  157;  (3853),  163;  (1827), 
240  [see  Table  A,  Appendix, 
396] ;  sixth  member  of  Cabinet, 
218;  origins  of  office  of,  220- 
228;  subject  to  President's 
direction,  233,  373;  reports 
(1790)  to  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  234;  origin  of  annual 
report  of,  235-236;  development 
of  office  (1789-1828)  of,  243; 
comments  on  office  of,  244  ff., 
249  ff . ;  J.  McLean 's  brief  ser- 
vice as,  under  Jackson,  245; 
comparison  of,  with  English 
Postmaster-General,  251-252. 

Postmaster-General  (British)  : 
origins  of  office  of,  220-221; 
Cotton  and  Frankland  in  office 
of,  224;  quotation  regarding, 
from  Act  of  1710,  225;  admitted 
into  Cabinet  for  first  time 
(1830),  251;  might  be  member 
of  the  House  of  Commons  (1866 
ff.),  251;  comparison  of,  with 
American,  251-252. 

Post-Office,  Colonial:  origins  of, 
221-222,  229;  Neale's  efforts 
for,  222  ff. ;  succeeding  arrange- 
ments of,  224-226. 

Post-Office,  Constitutional  Ameri- 
can (1774)  :  W.  Goddard's  work 
for,  226-227. 

Post-Office,  Continental  (1775- 
1789):  227-229. 

Post-Office,  Federal  (1789  ff.): 
temporary  arrangements  (1789- 
1794)  of,  unsatisfactory,  230- 
231;  permanent  establishment 
(1794)  of,  231;  comments  on 
legal  phraseology  concerning, 
231-232,  373;  re-organization 
(1872)  of,  232;  Washington's 


conception  of,  234;  conditions 
of,  under  McLean,  239  ff . ;  sug- 
gestion to  place  (1816)  in  Home 
Department,  261,  264,  note  25; 
similar  suggestion  (1824),  267. 

Post-Office  Department  (Ameri- 
can): law-officer  for  the,  189; 
reflections  on  characterizations 
of  the,  in  the  statutes,  231-232, 
373;  theory  of  the,  234-235,  373, 
note 14 ;  surpluses  of  the,  com- 
mon (1789-1834),  239,  note  39. 

Post-Office  Department  (British)  : 
officers  in  the,  prohibited  from 
interfering  at  elections,  233. 

Posts,  Master  of  the:  221. 

President:  single  officer  approved, 
52,  75;  P.  Webster's  conception 
of,  62;  theories  of  the  office  of, 
in  the  Convention  (1787),  66-68; 
intended  to  be  independent  of 
Congress  and  responsible,  84,  98 ; 
administrative  power  of  the, 
clearly  in  view,  97;  appointing 
power  of  the,  97-98,  note  1,  101 ; 
ideal  of  confidence  between  the, 
and  principal  officers  (1789), 
98-99;  appoints  national  treas- 
urer, 102;  requirements  of  the, 
119;  circumstances  uniting  the, 
with  the  principal  officers,  123; 
not  to  be  advised  by  Supreme 
Court  Judges,  128-129;  office  of 
the,  "a  splendid  misery,"  145, 
note  31 ;  influence  of  the,  on  the 
succession,  145 ;  McLean 's  con- 
ception of  the  office  of  the,  149- 
150;  travellers'  comments  on  the 
office  of  the,  150  ff . ;  succession, 
in  the  office  of,  191-195;  ideals 
underlying  the  office  of,  dis- 
cussed, 379  ff. ;  relation  of  the, 
to  Vice-President  in  matter  of 
counsel,  387;  Johnson's  defence 


462 


INDEX 


of  the  ideals  of  the  office  of, 
392-393;  salary  of  the,  396 
(Table  A.) ;  perquisites  of  the, 
398-399.  See  Executive,  Ameri- 
can, supra. 

Presidency  of  the  United  States 
(The),  by  A.  B.  Woodward: 
quoted,  146-147;  cited,  288. 

Preston,  Senator  W.  C.:  theory 
(1842)  of  presidential  office,  67, 
note  2. 

Price,  Dr.  Eichard:   56. 

Prime  Minister:  functions  of,  3, 
36;  modern  conception  of,  31; 
usage  of  phrase  (1878),  and 
recognition  of,  in  order  of  pre- 
cedence (1906),  158,  note  eo. 

Principal  Officers:  considered  as 
' '  constitutional  advisers, ' '  5, 
140,  379,  389  ff.;  ideal  of,  as 
assistants,  47-48,  78,  85  ff.,  107, 
110,  118  ff.,  122,  125  ff.,  378, 
392;  should  assist  in  appoint- 
ments, 62,  86;  appointed  by 
President,  68-69;  advisory  func- 
tions of,  75  ff . ;  Iredell  's  view 
(1788)  of,  87-88;  G.  Mason  and 
G.  Clinton  (1787)  predict  coun- 
cil of  state  from  combination  of, 
89-90;  C.  Pinckney's  prediction 
and  views  of  a  Cabinet  Council 
of,  90-94,  136,  370;  assumed  by 
Constitution,  92,  119;  should  be 
in  Cabinet  (1787),  93,  notees; 
tenure  of  office  of,  97;  removal 
of,  98,  140,  381,  note29?  332, 
391  ff. ;  confidence  between,  and 
President,  98-99,  135,  140,  182, 
378,  387,  391  ff.;  four  (1789) 
provided,  97  ff. ;  Washington 's 
principles  in  appointing,  110- 
111;  factors  making  for  combi- 
nation of,  119  ff.;  qualifications 
of,  144-145,  214;  suggestion  that 


they  sit  either  in  H.  of  K.  or 
Senate,  153,  154;  salaries  (1907) 
of,  157;  (1853),  163,  178;  (See 
Table  A,  Appendix,  396) ;  sense 
of  subordination  to  President, 
182,  378;  burdensome  duties  of, 
256-260,  passim;  joint  plan 
(1816)  of,  for  Home  Depart- 
ment, 261;  letter  of,  to  W. 
Lowndes  quoted,  262 ;  states  from 
which  choice  of,  has  been  made 
(1789-1909),  399  ff.  See  under 
titles  of  various  departments 
and  headships. 

Privy  Council  (American)  :  ideals 
(1787)  of  an,  72-73,  88;  revised 
title  of  G.  Morris's  council  of 
state,  77;  historic  usage  and  sig- 
nificance of  phrase,  78  ff.,  82,  92- 
93,  95-96,  369;  advisory  body  to 
colonial  and  state  governors,  79 
ff.;  modes  of  selection  of,  80; 
composition  of,  doubtful,  81; 
unlike  English  institution,  81-82. 

Privy  Council  (British)  :  origins 
of,  2,  llff.;  its  effectiveness 
under  Tudors  (1485-1603),  11, 
19-20;  predecessor  of  modern 
English  Cabinet,  11;  differen- 
tiated from  Cabinet  Council,  16, 
17;  Eoger  North's  explanation 
of  relation  of,  to  Cabinet  Coun- 
cil, 18-19;  divisions  of,  under 
Edward  VI  and  successors,  20, 
21;  unmanageable  under  Charles 
II,  21-22;  attempt  to  revive 
authority  of,  under  Anne,  25; 
Hallam  on,  36-37;  Sir  W.  Tem- 
ple's scheme  (1679)  for,  22,  45; 
belated  institution  (1787),  93; 
Wedderburn  's  invective  before 
committee  of  the,  226. 

Proceedings  of  the  %9th  Annual 
Meeting  of  the  U.  S.  Agricul- 


INDEX 


463 


tural  Society   (1881):   cited  and 
analyzed,  341  ff. 

Public  Lands.  See  Territorial  Ex- 
pansion. 

Quincy,  Josiah:  arraignment 
(1813)  of  Madison  Cabinet,  147 
ff. ;  reflections  on  incident,  149- 
150. 

Randolph,  Edmund:  learns  of 
Madison's  plan  of  council  of 
revision,  69;  Resolutions  (1787) 
of,  69 ;  fear  of  appointing  power, 
70;  his  council  of  revision  taken 
up  by  the  Convention,  75;  ap- 
pointment of,  as  first  Attorney- 
General  (1789),  114-115,  118- 
119;  favored  by  Madison's  influ- 
ence, 114;  claims  of,  for  position, 
114-115;  resignation  of,  refused, 
118;  not  present  at  first  recorded 
cabinet  meeting,  125;  present  at 
other  meetings,  125-126;  dismis- 
sal from  Cabinet  (1795),  130; 
reflections  (1790)  of,  on  his 
position,  159. 

Randolph,  John:  remarks  on  Cabi- 
net (1806),  138-139;  theory 
(1803)  of  place  of  advisers  in 
government,  142. 

Removal  of  Deposits:  103. 

* l  Report  on  Manufactures, "  by  A. 
Hamilton:  cited  and  quoted,  349. 

< '  Report  on  Public  Credit, "  by  A. 
Hamilton:  cited,  122. 

Reresby,  Sir  John  (1634-1689): 
cited  on  usage  of  "cabinet," 
15;  Memoirs  of,  44. 

Residence  requirement:  of  Vir- 
ginia Attorney-General,  107;  at- 
tempt to  enact  law  (1814)  con- 
cerning, for  federal  Attorney- 


General,  162;  exacted  of  R. 
Rush,  163;  Jackson  in  favor  of, 
173;  Folk's  exaction  of,  from 
cabinet  associates  (1845  ff.),  176- 
177;  Gushing  held  to,  177; 
growth  of  ideal  of,  178. 

Revision  of  Statutes  (1873-1874) : 
as  affecting  Departments  and 
headships,  104-105,  231-232,  289, 
373;  general  objects  of,  373-374. 

Revolutionary  War:  enforced  need 
of  naval  administration,  199, 
204;  hindrance  to  postal  admin- 
istration, 227-228;  relation  of 
western  movement  of  population 
to,  293. 

Rhea,  John:    149. 

Rhode  Island:  commissions  naval 
vessels,  199;  starts  movement  for 
continental  naval  organization, 
199-200. 

Rhodes,  James  Ford:  quoted,  183, 
note 48 ;  dependence  on,  184, 
note  5°. 

Richardson,  Hon.  William:  364. 

Richmond,  Fifth  Duke  of  (Charles 
Gordon-Lennox) :  first  English 
Postmaster-General  in  Cabinet 
(1830),  251,  note  65. 

Roads:  G.  Morris's  provision 
(1787)  for,  254;  administrative 
division  for  national,  suggested 
(1816),  261,  262;  another  sug- 
gestion (1824)  for  federal  ad- 
ministration of,  267.  See  Inter- 
nal Improvements,  supra. 

ROOSEVELT,  THEODORE  (1901- 
1909) :  appearance  under,  of  term 
"Cabinet"  in  federal  law 
(1907),  6,  156ff.,  376;  signs 
bill  (1903)  for  Department  of 
Commerce  and  Labor,  appointing 
Secretary,  346,  358,  360;  formu- 
lates demand  for  new  depart- 


464 


INDEX 


ment  (1901),  352,  355;  analysis 
of  portion  of  message  of,  356- 
357;  conclusion  of  term  of,  393. 

Eowan,   Senator  John:    273. 

Euffin,  Edmund:    317. 

Kush,  Eichard:  required  as  Attor- 
ney-General (1814-1817)  to  re- 
side at  seat  of  government,  163, 
165;  reflections  of,  on  English 
Attorney-General  (1818)  in 
Memoranda,  181,  188;  does  not 
sign  plan  (1816)  for  Home  De- 
partment, 261 ;  remarks  on  Home 
Department  project  (1825-1826), 
269  ff.;  correspondent  of  Sir.  J. 
Sinclair,  299. 

Eutledge,  John:  favors  E.  Sher- 
man's theory  (1787)  of  execu- 
tive, 67;  follows  C.  Pinckney's 
view  as  to  council  of  revision, 
69-70,  75,  86;  favors  executive 
advising  with  principal  officers, 
75;  chairman  of  Committee  of 
Detail,  77. 

St.  Glair's  expedition:  123,  125- 
126. 

Salaries:  comments  on,  157,  159, 
163,  169-170,  173  ff.,  175,  note  29, 
178,  201,  227,  240,  247,  250,  283, 
333,  371-372.  See  for  changes 
in  salaries  of  President,  Vice- 
President,  and  principal  officers 
(1789-1909)  Table  A,  Appendix, 
396;  also  Note,  pp.  397-398,  for 
the  salary  of  the  Secretary  of 
State  (1909-1911). 

Salmon,  Professor  Lucy  M. :  on 
appointing  power,  98,  note  1. 

Sanford,  Nathan:   262. 

Sargent,  Nathan:  evidence  of,  on 
McLean  appointment  (1829)  to 
Supreme  Court,  245  ff. 


Science  and  Art:  suggestions  (1824, 
1825)  to  place  under  Home  De- 
partment, 267,  268. 

Secretariat  (American)  :  original 
ideal  of,  361,  370-371,  374;  later 
aspects  of,  371  ff. 

Secretaries  of  Departments:  en- 
titled by  custom  to  cabinet  rank, 
6,  214-215,  217,  218,  284  ff.,  292, 
323  ff.,  332  ff.,  334  ff.,  346,  354, 
356,  359,  362  ff.,  375-377,  passim. 

Secretary  of  colony :  in  governor 's 
council,  81. 

Sedgwick,  Theodore:  47. 

Selden,  John  (1584-1654) :  on  usage 
of  "cabinet,"  15. 

Senate:  appointing  power  of,  71r 
85;  share  of,  in  foreign  affairs 
and  treaty  making,  85;  ineffec- 
tive as  intimate  council  of  advice, 
85,  121  ff.,  128;  committee  of, 
arranges  (1789)  judicial  estab- 
lishment, 105;  confirms  Washing- 
ton 's  appointments,  117-118,  370 ; 
reception  of  Washington  and 
Knox  by,  121-122;  standing  rule 
of,  quoted,  122;  defeats  resi- 
dence requirement  bill  (1814), 
162;  bill  to  re-adjust  Attorney- 
Generalship  (1830)  before,  173- 
174;  fails  to  ratify  Gushing 's 
appointment  to  Supreme  Court, 
183;  originates  law  (1792)  of 
succession,  192;  enlightened  by 
Jefferson  as  to  Mediterranean 
commerce,  207;  ratifies  peace 
with  Algiers  (1796),  208;  passes 
bill  for  Navy  Department,  213; 
ratifies  appointments  of  G.  Cabot 
and  B.  Stoddert,  216-217;  atti- 
tude of,  toward  postal  arrange- 
ments (1789),  229-230;  ratifies 
Osgood's  appointment,  230;  rati- 
fies McLean  's  appointment 


INDEX 


465 


(1841),  237;  discourtesy  toward, 
244;  requests  report  from  Madi- 
son on  Indian  affairs  (1815), 
259;  Crawford's  report  (1816) 
to,  259-260;  results  of  Macon's 
resolution  passed  by,  260  ff. ; 
failure  of  plan  for  Home  De- 
partment before,  261-263;  E.  J. 
Walker's  plan  of  Interior  De- 
partment before,  28  Iff.;  ratifies 
Ewing's  appointment  (1849), 
285 ;  interest  of,  in  Washington 's 
plan  for  board  of  agriculture, 
302;  debate  in,  on  bill  (1862) 
for  Department  of  Agriculture, 
332  ff. :  confirms  N.  J.  Colman  's 
appointment  (1889),  339;  bills 
in,  for  ninth  department,  357 ;  re- 
cognizes Labor,  358;  hears  letter 
of  S.  Gompers  against  arrange- 
ment of  Department  of  Com- 
merce and  Labor,  359;  Vice- 
President  not  a  member  of,  389; 
created  by  Constitution,  390. 
See  House  of  Eepresentatives, 
supra. 

Senate,  President  of:  in  Ells- 
worth's plan  of  advisory  coun- 
cil, 75,  386-387;  in  revised  plan 
of  G.  Morris's  council,  77; 
Judge  Woodward 's  comments 
on,  146;  government  (1881) 
without,  194.  See  Vice-Presi- 
dent, infra. 

Seybert,  Adam:  recommends  Home 
Department  (1812),  258  ff.; 
Monroe 's  letter  to,  quoted,  258. 

Sheridan,  Richard  B.:  297. 

^Sherman,  Koger:  theory  of  execu- 
tive of,  67;  discusses  council  of 
appointment  (1789)  with  J. 
Adams,  73;  favors  advisory 
council,  74-75. 

Short,  William:    255. 


Sidgwick,  Professor  Henry:  gen- 
eral obligation  to,  404. 

Simmons,  Senator  James  F. : 
remarks  on  Department  of  Agri- 
culture, 333-334. 

Sinclair,  Sir  John:  originator  of 
British  Board  of  Agriculture 
(1793  ff.),  297  ff.;  ideals  of,  and 
influence  on  Washington,  297- 
303,  passim. 

Skinner,  John  Stuart:  editor  of 
''American  Farmer,"  316-317, 
note  39. 

Slavery:  bureau  for,  suggested, 
267. 

Smith,  Caleb  B. :  recommends 
(1861)  Bureau  of  Agriculture, 
329-330. 

Smith,  Joseph  L.:  317,  note  *>. 

Smith,  Melancton:  idea  of  council 
of  appointment  (1788),  73. 

Smith,  Hon.  William,  of  S.  C.: 
favors  national  navy,  137-138, 
209. 

Smith,  Professor  W.  Eoy:  quota- 
tion from  South  Carolina  as  a 
Eoyal  Province,  on  colonial  prac- 
tices, 133-134. 

Smithson,  James:  404. 

Smithson  Bequest:  sought  (1841- 
1842)  for  agriculture,  316,  317. 

Smithsonian  Institution :  relation 
of  Cabinet  to,  403-404. 

Smyth,  Frederick:   342. 

Solicitor-General  of  the  U.  S. 
(1870):  creation  of,  and  func- 
tions, 190-191.  See  Attorney- 
General,  supra. 

South:  opposed  national  navy,  199, 
208 ;  G.  Morris  favors  navy  on 
behalf  of,  206;  comparison 
(1850)  of,  with  North,  315. 

Southard,  Samuel  L.:  remarks 
(1834)  on  W.  Wirt,  170-171;  re- 


466 


INDEX 


appointment  (1825)  to  Navy 
Department,  237,  245;  conveys 
to  J.  Q.  Adams  rumor  of  Mc- 
Lean's appointment  to  Supreme 
Court  (1829),  245;  view  of,  as 
to  Home  Department  (1826), 
271. 

South  Carolina :  attitude  of,  toward 
Navy  Department  plan,  214,  219. 

Spain:  threatened  war  (1790)  with 
Great  Britain,  120;  influence  on 
administration  of  war  with,  in 
1898,  355. 

Speed,  John  (1542-1629):  cited  on 
early  usage  of  "cabinet,"  15. 

Speed,  Joshua:  198. 

Spencer,  Eobert.  See  Sunderland, 
infra. 

Spotswood,  Alexander:  writes  to 
Board  of  Trade  (1718),  225; 
deputy  Postmaster -General  (1730 
ff.),  226. 

Stanley,  Lord,  of  Alderley :  252. 

Stanton,  Edwin  M.:  381. 

State,  Department  and  Secretary- 
ship of:  organization  (1789)  of, 
47,  100,  255,  372;  in  G.  Morris's 
advisory  council  (1787),  76;  in 
French  council  planned  by  G. 
Morris,  84,  note 43 ;  precedence 
of,  144;  influence  in  determining 
succession  to  Presidency,  144- 
145,  192;  Patent  Office  in  rela- 
tion to,  173,  257,  273,  309  ff.; 
law-officer  for,  189,  190;  impor- 
tance of,  in  national  administra- 
tion, 229;  Jefferson's  view  of 
postal  affairs  with  reference  to, 
234;  P.  Webster's  plan  (1783) 
for,  254;  inclusion  of  domestic 
affairs,  255,  269;  mint  in  rela- 
tion to,  256,  note  n ;  burdens  on, 
256  ff.,  272 ;  projects  to  relieve 
the,  258  ff.;  E.  J.  Walker's  views 


regarding  the,  277-278;  agricul- 
ture in  relation  to,  308;  relieved 
of  sundry  burdens,  346,  350, 
365;  relation  of,  to  trade  and 
commerce,  350;  Bureau  of  For- 
eign Commerce  taken  (1903) 
from,  365;  included  in  original 
ideal  of  American  secretariat, 
370  ff.  See  Foreign  Affairs;  also 
Home  Department  and  Secretary- 
ship of  the,  supra. 

State  Papers,  Calendars  of:  cited, 
15,  note13,  18;  comment  on,  44. 

State  Reports:  196. 

Statistics,  Bureau  of:   365-366. 

Stephens,  Alexander  H. :  in  U.  S. 
Agricultural  Society,  342. 

Stoddert,  Benjamin :  appointment 
of,  as  Secretary  of  the  Navy 
(1798-1801)  and  reflections  on, 
216-217. 

Strike  Commission:  364. 

Strikes:  Southwestern  (1886),  353; 
Anthracite  Coal  Miners'  (1902), 
355,  360,  364. 

Stuart,  Alexander  H.  H. :  remarks 
on  title  f '  Home  Department, ' ' 
281,  290;  member  of  U.  S.  Agri- 
cultural Society,  319. 

Stuart,  James:  comments  on  Cabi- 
net, 152-153. 

Stubbs,  Bishop :  view  as  to  King 's 
Council,  10. 

Sully,  Due  de :  55. 

Suinner,  Professor  W.  G. :  on  Eevo- 
lutionary  finances,  64. 

Sunderland,  Second  Earl  of  (Eob- 
ert Spencer),  influence  on  cabinet 
government,  24. 

Superintendent  of  Finance  (1781- 
1784) :  E.  Morris 's  appointment 
as,  53,  54;  resignation  of  Morris 
as,  55 ;  French  origin  of  title,  55, 
note  23. 


INDEX 


467 


Superintendent  of  Indian  Affairs: 
in  governor's  council,  81. 

Supreme  Court  of  the  U.  S. :  judges 
of,  decline  to  advise  President, 
128-129;  use  of  term  "  cabinet " 
(1803)  by,  155;  declines  (1896) 
to  pass  judgment  on  constitu- 
tional question  of  presidential 
power  of  removal,  381,  note 29. 
See  Chief -Justice,  supra. 

Surveyor-General  of  Customs:  in 
governor's  council,  81. 

Swift,  Jonathan  (1667-1745) :  cited 
on  usage  of  "cabinet,"  15. 

TAFT,      WILLIAM      H.      (1909- 

....):    practice  as  to  written 

opinions,  383-384. 
Taney,  Eoger  B.;   237. 
TAYLOE,     ZACHAEY     (1849- 

1850)  :  appointment  of  T.  Ewing 

(1849),    285;    takes   office,   286; 

recommendation    of    Bureau    of 

Agriculture,  313-314,  330. 
Telegraph,  U.  S.:  244,  247,  248. 
Temple,    Sir    William:    scheme   of 

1679,  22,45. 
Tenure  of  Office  Act   (1867),  381, 

note  29,  382. 
Territorial    Expansion :     comments 

on,   172,  253,  274,  286,   290-291, 

293,  294,  305,  315,  355. 
Territorial    Governors    of    the   Old 

Northwest,   by   D.    G.   McCarty: 

cited,  289. 

Texas:  274,  275,  279,  291. 
Thayer,    Professor    James    B. : 

quoted,  128-129. 
Thompson,  Jacob:    at  meetings  of 

U.  S.  Agricultural  Society,  319; 

plans  to  establish  (1859)  Bureau 

of  Agriculture,  322. 
Tilden,    Samuel  J.:    defends  Jack- 


son's conception  of  Treasury 
Department  (1834),  103. 

Tilghman,  Tench:  320,  342. 

Todd,  Alpheus:  estimate  of  his  On 
Parliamentary  Government  (1867- 
1869),  39  ff.,  42,45. 

Toucey,  Isaac:  177,  320. 

Trade,  National  Board  of:  352, 
note  10. 

Transportation:  comments  on,  305, 
321,  350;  evil  of  rebates  in,  353. 

Travellers'  comments:    150  ff. 

Treasurer  of  Colony:  in  governor's 
council,  81. 

Treasurer  of  U.  S. :  appointment 
of,  102. 

Treasury,  Department  and  Secre- 
taryship of  the:  organized 
(1789),  47,  100,  372;  included  in 
C.  Pinckney's  Cabinet  Council 
(1787),  91;  was  it  an  "execu- 
tive department"?  100  ff.,  372- 
373,  381-382;  possible  explana- 
tion of  peculiarities  of,  101-102; 
Jefferson's  allusion  (1792)  to, 
102;  efforts  (1836ff.)  to  have 
Congress  appoint  head,  104;  E. 
Morris  suggested  (1789)  for, 
112-113;  Hamilton's  appoint- 
ment to,  113-114, 118;  importance 
of,  to  national  government,  229 ; 
early  theory  of  Post -Office  in 
relation  to,  234-235;  burden  of 
Post-Office  on  the,  239;  in  rela- 
tion to  public  lands,  273,  277  ff., 
279,  284;  E.  J.  Walker's  plan  of 
relieving  (1848),  276  ff.;  relief 
provided  for,  285  ff.,  290-291,  346, 
350,  361,  365;  regulation  of  trade 
and  commerce  by,  350.  See 
Finance,  Finances,  supra;  Treas- 
sury,  Solicitor  of;  Treasury 
Board,  infra. 

Treasury,    Solicitor    of    the:    com- 


468 


INDEX 


ments  on  establishment  (1830) 
of,  and  office  of,  174-175,  185, 
189. 

Treasury  Board:  organization 
(1785)  of,  55,  100,  112;  per- 
sonnel of,  118;  winds  up  Revo- 
lutionary naval  business,  202 ; 
disbandment  of,  230. 

Trollope,  Mrs.  Frances  M. :  impres- 
sions of  Jackson's  Cabinet,  154. 

Truxton,   Captain   Thomas:    211. 

TYLEE,  JOHN  (1841-1845): 
usage  of  ' '  cabinet ' '  by,  155 ; 
appointment  of  McLean  (1841), 
237;  addresses  U.  S.  Agricultural 
Society,  320;  suggestion  of 
troubles  in  Cabinet  of,  393. 

United  States  (frigate) :  208,  212. 
United  States  Agricultural  Society. 

See  Agricultural  Societies,  supra. 
United  States  vs.  Kendall  (1837) : 

cited,  231,  note  21,  373,  note**; 

quotation  from,  380,  note  25. 

VAN  BUEEN,  MAETIN  (1837- 
1841):  Secretary  of  State  under 
Jackson,  242;  intimacy  of,  as 
Vice-President  with  President 
Jackson,  387,  note*0. 

Vane,  Sir  Henry:  "of  the  Cabi- 
net" (1630),  15,  note  is. 

Van  Eensselaer,  General  Solomon: 
appointment  of,  discussed  (1822) 
in  cabinet  session,  243. 

Varnum,  Judge  Joseph  M. :  appro- 
val of  Knox  as  Secretary  at 
War,  114,  note  9. 

Vergennes,  Count  de:   57. 

Veto  of  President.  See  Council  of 
Eevision,  supra. 

Vice-President :  written  opinion 
(1790)  of,  121;  at  cabinet  ses- 
sion (1791),  123-124,  384;  urged 


(1797)  to  take  part  in  cabinet 
consultations,  124O25,  138,  384- 
385;  Judge  Woodward's  views 
regarding,  143  ff.,  385;  office  of, 
calls  for  no  special  talent,  145; 
salary  (1907)  of,  157  (See  Table 
A,  Appendix,  396) ;  succession  of, 
191  ff . ;  reflections  on  relation  of, 
to  Cabinet,  384  ff . ;  anomalous 
position  of,  387;  compared  with 
Speaker  of  H.  of  E.,  387;  three 
famous  intimacies  in  office  of, 
387,  note  40 ;  not  a  constitutional 
adviser,  389. 

Victoria,  Queen  (1837-1901):  Post- 
master-Generalship during  reign 
of,  251-252. 

Vining,  John:  expresses  ideal  of 
assistant  functions  of  principal 
officers,  47;  urges  (1789)  Home 
Department,  100,  255;  on  com- 
mittee to  arrange  departments, 
109;  on  danger  of  allowing 
President  to  establish  post-offices, 
233. 

Vinton,  Hon.  Samuel  F. :  introduces 
bill  for  Interior  Department 
(1849),  279-280. 

Virginia :  Attorneys-General  in, 
before  1650,  106-107;  residence 
requirement  in,  107;  laws  of, 
revised  by  E.  Eandolph,  114;  T. 
Jefferson  governor  of,  117;  E. 
Eandolph 's  return  to,  118;  objec- 
tions in,  to  British  postal  regula- 
tions, 225. 

' '  Virginia  Influence ' ' :  Quincy  's 
remarks  (3813)  on,  148-149. 

Wadsworth,  Jeremiah:  109. 

Walker,  Eobert  J.:  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  (1845-1849),  sketch 
of  career  of,  275-276;  plan  for 
Interior  Department  (1848),  277- 


INDEX 


469 


279;  estimate  of,  287;  member 
of  Agricultural  Society  of  U.  S. 
(1841-1842),  316. 

Walpole,  Sir  Robert:  influence  of 
on  cabinet  government,  26. 

Walpole,  Sir  Spencer:  revision  of 
Todd  On  Parliamentary  Govern- 
ment, 40,  note  ™. 

War,  Board  of:  suggestion  (1817) 
for,  264,  note  25. 

War,  Department  and  Secretary- 
ship of :  preliminary  suggestions 
for  establishment  of,  75,  76,  84, 
note  43,  91;  establishment  (1789) 
of,  47,  100,  206,  note  i«,  372; 
Knox's  appointment  to,  112  ff. ; 
qualifications  of  head  of,  145 ;  in 
charge  of  naval  business  (1789- 
1798),  206  ff.;  proposal  of  com- 
missioner of  marine  under,  212; 
McHenry  wishes  separation  of 
naval  affairs  under,  212;  bur- 
dens of,  160-161,  214,  257  ff., 
271,  278;  McLean's  appointment 
(1841)  to,  237;  relation  of,  to 
Patents,  310. 

War,  Secretary  at  (1781-1789): 
54,  55,  108,  113-114;  origin  of 
title  of,  55. 

War  Department,  Solicitor  of  the: 
189. 

War  of  1812:  administrative  bur- 
dens due  to,  160-161,  259;  proba- 
ble interference  of,  with  project 
for  Home  Department  (1812), 
259;  effect  of,  on  commerce  and 
agriculture,  307,  316. 

Waring,  George  E.,  Jr. :  320. 

WASHINGTON,  GEORGE  (1789- 
1797)  :  creates  council  of  assist- 
ants, 5-7,  passim,  118  ff.,  135, 
141,  369,  382;  ideal  of,  as  to 
principal  officers,  47;  suggestion 
of,  as  King,  51;  favored  single 


headships,  53,  201 ;  Madison 's 
comment  (1787)  to,  regarding  ad- 
ministrative officers,  68;  English 
correspondent  (1787)  recom- 
mends Cabinet  Council  to,  93, 
note 65 ;  reckons  Attorney-Gen- 
eral a  cabinet  associate,  105-106, 
160,  181,  note «;  probable 
President  (1787),  110;  elected 
and  inaugurated,  110,  292;  prin- 
ciples of,  in  appointments,  110- 
111;  regard  of,  for  claims  of 
friendship,  111 ;  appointments 
of,  as  assistants,  113  ff .,  370 ; 
Madison's  influence  over,  114, 
115-117,  256;  affection  for  E. 
Randolph,  115;  friendship  of, 
with  Jay,  115,  116;  forwards 
Constitution  (1787)  to  Jefferson, 
116;  refusal  of,  to  accept  Ran- 
dolph's resignation  (1790),  118; 
problems  of  Presidency  of,  119; 
views  of,  regarding  principal 
officers,  119-120;  takes  opinions 
in  writing,  120-121,  382,  384; 
advises  with  Senate,  120-121; 
tour  of,  in  South,  123;  requests 
meeting  (1791)  of  principal  offi- 
cers, 123-124,  141;  cabinet  meet- 
ings at  house  of,  125-126;  desire 
of,  to  establish  sound  precedents, 
125  ff . ;  Supreme  Court  declines 
to  advise,  128-129;  skill  of,  in 
holding  Cabinet  together,  130; 
alleged  offer  of  Treasury  by,  to 
R.  Morris,  131-132 ;  favors  build- 
ing national  navy,  208;  quota- 
tion from  last  annual  message 
of,  regarding  navy,  209-210;  ap- 
pointment of  captains  (1794) 
by,  210-211;  in  accord  with  J. 
Adams  on  need  of  navy,  211; 
appreciation  of  larger  aspects  of 
naval  problems  by,  218;  appoints 


470 


INDEX 


S.  Osgood  to  Post-Office  (1789), 
228,  230;  urges  adequate  legal 
provisions  for  Post-Office,  230; 
annexes  Post-Office  to  Treasury, 
234;  Jefferson's  idea  of  domes- 
tic business  in  State  Depart- 
ment conveyed  to,  255-256; 
places  Mint  in  State  Department, 
256,  n^ote " ;  interest  of,  in 
farming,  294 ;  correspondence  of, 
with  Pollnitz,  295-296;  influence 
of  Sir  J.  Sinclair  over,  299  ff. ; 
proposed  retirement  of,  from 
Presidency,  300;  preparation  by, 
of  last  annual  message,  300-302; 
reflections  of,  and  comments  on 
ideal  of  Board  of  Agriculture, 
306,  307,  313,  339,  342. 

Washington,  Martha:    131. 

Watson,  Elkanah :  founder  of  Berk- 
shire Agricultural  Society,  304; 
exertion  of,  for  state  board  of 
agriculture  in  N.  Y.,  306,  note 
23;  plans  National  Board  of 
Agriculture  (1816),  307-308. 

Wealth:  reflections  on  development 
of,  172,  335,  321,  334,  353. 

Webster,  Daniel:  aid  of,  in  re- 
organization of  Attorney-Gen- 
eral's Office  (1830),  174;  ap- 
proval of  private  practice  of 
Attorney-General,  174;  on  sug- 
gestion for  Home  Department 
(1830),  174,  273;  approves  crea- 
tion (1830)  of  Solicitor  of  the 
Treasury,  174-175;  comments  by. 
on  Jackson's  first  Cabinet,  244; 
beginning  (1825)  of  interest  of, 
in  project  of  Home  Department, 
270;  visit  of,  to  President  J.  Q. 
Adams,  270;  comments  on  his 
letter  (1826)  to  Secretaries, 
271;  work  of,  for  Interior  De-  j 
partment  (1849),  281,  283-284,  I 


286,  287;  attends  meeting 
(1852)  of  U.  S.  Agricultural 
Society,  319. 

Webster,  Noah:  urges  (1785) 
single  national  executive,  51-52. 

Webster,  Pelatiah:  proposal 
(1783)  for  altering  continental 
form  of  government,  61  ff . ;  plan 
of,  for  council  of  state,  62,  369; 
reflections  on  plan  of,  and  esti- 
mate of  its  importance,  62-63; 
ideal  of  appointing  power,  62, 
72,  86;  comparison  of  plan  of, 
with  G.  Morris's,  83;  law-officer 
in  council  of,  107;  recommends 
Secretary  of  State  (for  internal 
affairs),  253-254;  idea  of,  re- 
garding a  National  Chamber  of 
Commerce,  348-350,  passim. 

Wedderburn,  Alexander:  attack  of, 
on  B.  Franklin,  226. 

Welles,  Gideon.     See  Diary,  supra. 

West,  Alanson  M. ;  388,  note  *i. 

West, :   224. 

West,  Eichard:    133. 

Wharton,  Francis:  contribution  to 
history  of  administrative  devel- 
opment (1775-1789),  64;  use  of 
"constructive,"  201,  note3. 

Whig  Convention    (1848):   238. 

Wilder,  Marshall  P.:  relations  of, 
to  U.  S.  Agricultural  Society, 
318  ff. ;  voices  ' '  Calvert  view, ' ' 
favoring  Department  of  Agri- 
culture, 325;  prediction  by,  of 
Department  of  Agriculture,  325- 
326;  resolution  of  congratulation 
(3881)  sent  to,  342. 

William  III  and  Mary  (1689- 
1702) :  arrangement  of  cabinet 
mechanism  in  process  of  forma- 
tion under,  23  ff . ;  Hallam  on 
reign  of,  37;  Macaulay  on  reign 


INDEX 


471 


of,  38;   policy  of,  as  to  colonial 
matters,  225. 

Williams,  George  H.:    198. 

Wilson,  James:  theory  of  executive 
favored  (1787)  by,  67;  favors 
council  of  revision,  69 ;  sees 
force  in  Mason's  view  of  council 
of  appointment,  71 ;  regards 
principal  officers  as  fit  to  give  j 
advice,  87. 

Wilson,  William  L. :   on  American    • 
Post-Office,  239,  note  39. 

Winthrop,  Eobert  C.:   320. 

Wirt,  William:  reforms  Attorney- 
General's  Office,  160;  acceptance 
of  Attorney-Generalship,  166; 
letter  of,  to  Judge  Nelson  quoted 
and  analyzed,  166-169;  estimate 
of  work  of,  169-172;  comparison 
of,  with  C.  Gushing,  179;  re- 
appointed  by  J.  Q.  Adams 
(1825),  237;  candidate  of,  for 
Presidency  (1830),  238;  com- 
parison of,  with  J.  McLean,  239; 
ignored  (1826)  in  plan  of  Home 
Department,  271. 

Wolcott,  Oliver:  137,  216. 


Woodward,  Augustus  Brevoort : 
Considerations  (1809)  of ,  quoted, 
142  ff. ;  analysis  of  thought  of, 
with  comments,  142-146;  Presi- 
dency (1825)  of,  quoted  with 
comments,  146-147;  estimate  of, 
142,  143,  266-267,  note  so,  288- 
289,  379,  385;  plan  by,  for  execu- 
tive directory,  145;  possible  sug- 
gestion of,  for  administrative  re- 
organization (1817),  264,  note 
25,  265. 

Wright,  Hon.  Carroll  D.:  354. 

Wright,  Frances:  comments  of,  on 
English  and  American  secre- 
tariat, in  her  Views  of  Society, 
151-152;  death  of,  152,  note  47. 

Wright,  Silas:  declines  Vice-Presi- 
dency (1844),  388,  note  4i. 

Written  Opinions.  See  Opinions  in 
writing,  supra. 

Yonge,  Walter:  cited  on  early 
usage  of  f '  cabinet, ' '  15,  note  13. 

Young,  Arthur:  quoted  on  plan  of 
British  Board  of  Agriculture 
(1793  ff.)  297. 


PRESS  OF  E.   L.   HILDRETH   &  CO.,   BRATTLEBORO,  VT. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


•  -\^^  %a 

C'PQ.7^" 

D  LD 

pr^ 

MAR    ^4b4  yfikj  .  „ 

|  ?/T  \A  f- 

, 

Wv  23  jagg 

— 


F£ll'b9-12AM 


NOV2    « 


8 


- 


LD2lA-40m-ll,'63 
(E1602slO)476B 


IAY 


University  of  California 
Berkeley 


YC  39S74 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


B0030170SM 


6. 


"W&RS 

^— 


ITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


